HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 5633CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 4-3-090 OF CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND
OVERLAY DISTRICTS, 4-8-120 OF CHAPTER 8, PERMITS - GENERAL AND
APPEALS, AND 4-9-190 OF CHAPTER 9, PERMITS - SPECIFIC; CHAPTER 10, LEGAL
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, USES AND LOTS; AND SECTIONS 4-11-010, 4-
11-020, 4-11-030, 4-11-060, 4-11-080, 4-11-120, 4-11-130, 4-11-140, 4-11-150,
4-11-160, 4-11-180, 4-11-190, 4-11-220 AND 4-11-230 OF CHAPTER 11,
DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON", ESTABLISHING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM BY
AMENDING SHORELINES REGULATIONS, ADDING A NEW SECTION 4-10-095,
ENTITLED "SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, NONCONFORMING USES,
ACTIVITIES, STRUCTURES, AND SITES", REVISING AND ADDING SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM-RELATED DEFINITIONS AND ADOPTING THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SHORELINE
ENVIRONMENT OVERLAYS MAP AND THE SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58) by a vote of the people in 1971; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies
of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the
Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) provides a timetable that
requires the City to amend its master program by December 1, 2009, and the City received a
grant from the Department of Ecology to support the update process; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a comprehensive public involvement plan that provided
widespread public notice and held periodic public workshop meetings and public hearings with
1
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the Planning Commission between Spring 2008 and Spring 2010 and City Council meetings in
2010;and
WHEREAS, the City developed a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document
and distributed it for agency and public review and compiled and responded to comments and
issued a final document in March 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a series of technical memoranda on specific topics
relevant to the Shoreline Master Program and held a series of public workshops on the
documents and compiled and responded to comments; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Shoreline Master Program in July 2009 and considered
and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised Draft
Shoreline Master Program in October 2009, December 2009, February 2010, March 2010, June
2010 and September 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis in July 2009 and
considered and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised
Cumulative Impacts Analysis in October 2009 and a Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis in March
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Restoration Plan in October 2009 and considered and
responded to government agency and public comments and issued a Final Restoration Plan in
March 2010 with minor corrections in June 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-
Significance on the proposed Shoreline Master Program on May 10, 2010; and
2
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
WHEREAS, such modification and integration of the Shoreline Master Program is
intended to protect and provide for the public interest; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 4067,
approving the Shoreline Master Program and agreed to adopt the Shoreline Master Program by
ordinance upon Department of Ecology approval; and
WHEREAS, Department of Ecology approved Renton's Shoreline Master Program with
only minor changes on March 9, 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, of Chapter 3,
Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington",
is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following:
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS:
A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program consists of the following elements:
1. The Shoreline Management Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
2. This section RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations which
are subject to review and approval by the Washington State Department of
Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090.
3. RMC Chapter 4-11 Definitions which are subject to review and approval
by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to
3
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the extent that they relate to section RMC 4-3-090 or are defined by RCW
90.58.030.
4. RMC section 4-9-190 Shoreline Permits which are subject to review and
approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW
90.58.090 to the extent that they relate to specific procedural mandates of RCW
90.58.
5. RMC section 4-10-095 Shoreline Non-Conforming Uses, Activities
Structures and Sites which are subject to review and approval by the Washington
State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they
relate to specific procedural mandates of RCW 90.58.
6. The Shoreline Restoration Element of the Shoreline Master Program, of
which one printed copy in book form has heretofore been filed and is now on file
in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the general
public, shall not be considered to contain regulations but shall be utilized as a
guideline for capital improvements planning by the City and other jurisdictions
undertaking ecological restoration activities within Shoreline Management Act
jurisdiction.
7. The Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, of which one (1) printed copy
has heretofore been filed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk and made
available for examination by the general public, and another printed copy of
which is available at the Department of Community and Economic Development.
4
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
An electronic copy may also be posted online at the City's website
www.rentonwa.gov.
B. REGULATED SHORELINES:
The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State,
which includes Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in
RMC 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington;
b. Green River (The area within the OHWM of the Green River is not
within the Renton City Limits, but portions of the two hundred (200)-foot
shoreline jurisdiction are within city limits).
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River;
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st Street in
the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM;
c. Black River;
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd
Street on the south;
e. Lake Desire (in the City's potential annexation area at the time of
adoption of the Shoreline Master Program).
3. The Jurisdictional Area Includes:
5
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a. Lands within two hundred feet (200'), as measured on a horizontal
plane, from the OHWM, or lands within two hundred feet (200') from floodways,
whichever is greater;
b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams,
lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline
Management Act.
C. SHORELINES OVERLAY DISTRICTS:
1. Natural Environment Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Natural Environment Overlay District: The
objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the
Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline
Environment Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090A.6, and shall include that portion of
the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence with Springbrook
Creek.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations.
2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment
Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are
located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
6
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline
Environment Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090A.6 and shall include:
® That portion of the Lake Washington shoreline within Gene Coulon Park
extending from one hundred feet (100') north of the northerly end of the
northernmost driveway to the northerly end of the park.
• May Creek east of Lake Washington, including the open space area within
the Barbee Mill site.
• That portion of the south bank of the Cedar River extending from three
hundred fifty feet (350') east of 1-405 right of way to SR 169.
• The Cedar River, extending from SR 169 to the easterly limit of the Urban
Growth Area.
• That portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW
27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned
wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the creek in the
vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be
designated conservancy.
• Per WAC 176-26-211(2)(e) all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are
not designated within the Shoreline Master Program are automatically assigned
to be in the Urban Conservancy Overlay District until the shoreline can be
redesignated through a Shoreline Master Program amendment approved by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
7
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations.
3. Single-Family Residential Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Single-Family Residential Overlay: The objectives
and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline
Environment Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090A.6 and shall include those shoreline
areas with residential zoning and use located on Lake Washington, the Cedar
River and Lake Desire. Publicly owned park and open space areas with
residential zoning shall be excluded.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations.
4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity Overlay District: The objectives
and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline
Environment Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090A.6 and shall include:
8 The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation generally
north of May Creek.
8
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
• The southerly portion of Gene Coulon Park, generally south of and
including the over-water walkway, concession areas, parking areas, boat launch
areas, and the swimming beach.
• The Urban Center North- 1 (UC-N1), Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2), and
Industrial- Heavy zoned (IH) areas along the south shoreline of Lake Washington,
the Municipal Airport, and adjacent COR designated areas.
• The Cedar River from the mouth to 1-405.
• The north side of the Cedar River east of 1-405 within areas of COR zoning
designation.
• Areas of Springbrook Creek not in Natural or Urban Conservancy
overlays.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations, which allows land uses in RMC Chapter 4-2 in this overlay district,
subject to the preference for water-dependent and water-oriented uses. Uses
adjacent to the water's edge and within buffer areas are reserved for water-
oriented development, public/community access, and/or ecological restoration.
5. Shoreline High Intensity - Isolated Lands - Overlay District:
a. Designation of the High Intensity - Isolated Lands - Overlay District:
The objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the
Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline
Environment Overlay Map, see RMC 4-3-090A.6, and shall include:
9
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Areas within shoreline jurisdiction of the Green River but isolated
by the intervening railroad right-of-way.
ii. Areas immediately north of the Cedar River (right bank) and north
of Riverside Drive between Williams Avenue South and Bronson Way North.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Allowed uses are detailed in RMC 4-
3-090E.1 Shoreline Use Table. The shoreline regulations that apply within this
overlay are the land use regulations of Title IV, Development Regulations, of the
Renton Municipal Code, subject to the permit and procedural requirements of
the Shoreline Master Program. In most cases, the performance standards in this
section do not apply to development or uses in this overlay.
6. Aquatic Shoreline Overlay District:
a. Designation of the Aquatic Overlay District: The objectives and
criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan-
fa. Application: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area
waterward of the OHWM of all streams and rivers, all marine water bodies, and
all lakes, constituting shorelines of the state together with their underlying lands
and their water column; but do not include associated wetlands and other
shorelands shoreward of the OHWM. This designation is not found on the
Shoreline Environment Map, but shall be assigned based on the description
above.
10
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use
Regulations, water-dependent uses and a limited range of water-oriented uses
are allowed in the Aquatic Overlay, subject to provision of shoreline ecological
enhancement and public access.
P. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Applicability: This section shall apply to all use and development
activities within the shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be
repeated in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation
of all shoreline permits.
Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV Development Regulations,
Chapter 4, City-wide Property Development Standards (RMC 4-4) contain
regulations and standards governing site development of property city-wide,
such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such provisions shall apply
within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set
forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set
forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail.
2. Environmental Effects:
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
i. No net loss required: Shoreline use and development shall be
carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no
net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use-
Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical,
11
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020).
Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited
to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature
maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not
limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge
and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris
recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream
channel formation/maintenance.
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss
of ecological functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts
shall be considered and mitigated on- or off-site.
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for
any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken
to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss
of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order:
(a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action.
(b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology
and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse
impacts.
12
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating,
or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing,
enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and
monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of
proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in
the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including
demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient
mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological
functions.
c. Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas
shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area
Regulations, adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded in
subsection 2, below. Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or
development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or
written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no
development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or
altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by
13
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the
regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the
Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of
the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management
Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions
below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall
prevail.
(a) Aquifer protection areas.
(b) Areas of special flood hazard.
(c) Sensitive slopes, twenty-five percent (25%) to forty percent
(40%), and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater.
(d) Landslide hazard areas.
(e) High erosion hazards.
(f) High seismic hazards.
(g) Coal mine hazards.
(h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
(i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and
Lakes: Classes 2 through 5 only.
ii. Inapplicable Critical Area Regulations: The following provisions of
RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations shall not apply within shoreline
jurisdiction:
14
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(a) RMC 4-3-050N Alternates, Modifications and Variances,
Subsections 1 and 3 Variances, and
(b) RMC 4-9-250 Variances, Waivers, Modifications and
Alternatives.
(c) Wetlands, including shoreline associated wetlands, unless
specified below.
iii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation
Areas: Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy shall be
considered Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas. Regulations for fish habitat
conservation areas Class 1 Streams and Lakes are contained within the
development standards and use standards of the Shoreline Master Program,
including but not limited to RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation, which
establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies and specific provisions
for use and for shoreline modification in Subsections 4-3-090E and 4-3-090F.
There shall be no modification of the required setback and buffer for non-water
dependent uses in Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation areas without an approved
shoreline conditional use permit.
iv. Alternate Mitigation Approaches: To provide for flexibility in the
administration of the ecological protection provisions of the Shoreline Master
Program, alternative mitigation approaches may be applied for as provided in
RMC 4-3-050N Alternates, Modifications and Variances, subsection 2.
Modifications within shoreline jurisdiction may be approved for those critical
15
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
areas regulated by that section as a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where such
approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and
processes over the standard provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are
scientifically supported by specific studies performed by qualified professionals.
d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance
with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise
provided for in this Chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the
Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual, (Ecology
Publication 96-94) regardless of any formal identification are hereby designated
critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on
categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland
categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology
Publication #04-06-025). These categories are generally defined as follows:
(a) Category I Wetlands: Category I wetlands are those
wetlands of exceptional value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood
and storm water, and/or providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating
system score of seventy (70) points or more. These are wetland communities of
infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for critical,
16
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
threatened or endangered species, and/or have other attributes that are very
difficult or impossible to replace if altered.
(b) Category II Wetlands: Category II wetlands have significant
value based on their function as indicated by a rating system score of between
fifty-one (51) and sixty-nine (69) points. They do not meet the criteria for
Category I rating but occur infrequently and have qualities that are difficult to
replace if altered.
(c) Category III Wetlands: Category III wetlands have
important resource value as indicated by a rating system score of between thirty
(30) and fifty (50) points.
(d) Category IV Wetlands: Category IV wetlands are wetlands
of limited resource value as indicated by a rating system score of less than thirty
(30) points. They typically have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special
habitat features, and/or are isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems
or high quality upland habitats.
iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland
assessment study shall be required.
iv. Wetland Buffers:
(a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required
for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created,
restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall
also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created,
17
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are
functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road
or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use
characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be
feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions.
(b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by
this Chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the
buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer
lacks adequate vegetation, the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee may increase the standard buffer,
require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer
reduction or buffer averaging.
(c) Minimum Buffer Width:
Wetland
Category
Low Wildlife
Function
(less than
20 points)
Moderate
Wildlife
Function
(20 - 28
points)
Buffer Width (feet)
High
Wildlife
Function
(29 or more
points)
Category IV
Category III
Category II
Category I
50
75
100
125
50
125
150
150
50 1
150 1
225
225
1. Habitat scores over 26 points would be very rare for Category I
have a total rating of 30 or less.
wetlands and almost impossible for Category IV wetlands that
18
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(d) Buffer Requirements for Wetland Mitigation Banks: Where
wetland mitigation sites or wetland banks have been approved, required buffers
shall be as specified in the mitigation site or wetland bank approval.
(e) Increased Buffer for Steep Slopes: Where lands within the
wetland buffer have an average continuous slope of twenty percent (20%) to
thirty-five percent (35%), and the required buffer width is less than one hundred
feet (100'), the buffer shall extend to a thirty percent (30%) greater dimension-
In all cases, where slopes within the buffers exceed thirty-five percent (35%), the
buffer shall extend twenty-five feet (25') beyond the top of the bank of the
sloping area or to the end of the buffer associated with a geological hazard if one
is present, whichever is greater.
v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be
regulated regardless of size, provided that the Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee shall assure that
preservation of isolated wetlands and associated buffers of less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet of combined wetland and buffer shall maintain
effective wetland functions, or be mitigated as provided below.
(a) Wetlands and associated buffers of one thousand (1,000)
square feet or less may be displaced when the wetland meets all of the following
criteria, as documented in a wetland mitigation plan:
(1) The wetland is not associated with a riparian corridor;
19
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(2) The wetland is not part of a wetland mosaic, or collection
of small wetlands that are hydrologically related to one another;
(3) The wetland does not contain habitat identified as
essential for local populations of priority species identified by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife;
(4) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to
subsection x, below.
(b) Category III and IV wetlands and buffers between one
thousand (1,000) and four thousand (4,000) square feet may be displaced
provided that all of the following criteria are documented in a wetland
mitigation plan:
(1) The wetland does not score twenty (20) points or greater
for habitat in the 2004 Western Washington Rating System;
(2) The wetland is depressional and is recharged only by
precipitation, interflow or groundwater and adjacent development cannot
assure a source of recharge to maintain its hydrologic character through
stormwater infiltration, or other means;
(3) The wetlands does not have a potential to reduce flooding
or erosion or has the potential to maintain or improve water quality as
evidenced by a score of at least ten (10) points on the applicable criteria of the
Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington;
20
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(4) The total area of the combined wetland and buffer is ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or less and:
(A) It does not achieve a score of at least twenty (20)
points on the Habitat Functions criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western
Washington; and
(B) The wetland and buffer is not connected to a larger
open space complex which may include, but is not limited to a stream buffer, a
buffer associated with a geological hazard, or other designated open space
buffer sufficient to allow movement of terrestrial wildlife to and from the
wetland and buffer complex without interruption by roads, paved areas or
buildings within fifty feet (50').
(5) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to
subsection x, below.
vi. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee may average wetland
buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates through
a wetland study to the satisfaction of the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee that all the following
criteria are met:
(a) The wetland has significant differences in characteristics
that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component
21
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual-rated" wetland with a
Category I area adjacent to a lower rated area;
(b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning
area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent
to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion;
(c) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the
area required without averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for
averaging are generally parallel to the wetland edge;
(d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three
quarters (3/4) of the required width.
vii. Reasonable Use: Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable
use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met:
(a) There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that
could be accomplished without buffer averaging;
(b) The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the
wetland's functions and values as demonstrated by a wetland assessment study;
(c) The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area
required without averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging
are generally parallel to the wetland edge;
(d) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three
quarters (3/4) of the required width except where the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee finds that
22
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
there is an existing feature such as a roadway that limits buffer dimension, or an
essential element of a proposed development such as access that must be
accommodated for reasonable use and requires a smaller buffer.
viii. Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed; The Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may
increase the width of the standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis, based
on a critical area study, when a larger buffer is required to protect critical
habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050K, or such increase is necessary to:
(a) Protect the function and value of that wetland from
proximity impacts of adjacent land use, including noise, light and other
disturbance, not sufficiently limited by buffers provided above;
(b) To maintain viable populations of priority species of fish
and wildlife; or
(c) Protect wetlands or other critical areas from landslides,
erosion or other hazards.
ix. Allowed activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and
activities may be allowed in wetlands or buffer areas by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee subject to
the priorities, protection, and mitigation requirements of this section:
(a) Utilities: Utility lines and facilities providing local delivery
service, not including facilities such as electrical substations, water and sewage
pumping stations, water storage tanks, petroleum products pipelines and not
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
including transformers or other facilities containing hazardous substances, may-
be located in Category I, II, III, and IV wetlands and their buffers and/or Category
I wetland buffers if the following criteria are met:
(1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the
wetland or wetland buffer based on analysis of system needs, available
technology and alternative routes. Location within a wetland buffer shall be
preferred over a location within a wetland;
(2) The utility line is located as far from the wetland edge as
possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
(3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to
the minimum necessary to install the utility line, which may include boring, and
the area is restored following utility installation;
(4) Buried utility lines shall be constructed in a manner that
prevents adverse impacts to subsurface drainage. This may include the use of
trench plugs or other devices as needed to maintain hydrology;
(5) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance
with subsection x, below.
(b) Roadways, Railways, and Bridges: Public and private
roadways and railroad facilities, including bridge construction and culvert
installation, if the following criteria are met:
(1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the
wetland or wetland buffer based on analysis of system needs, available
24
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
technology and alternative routes. Location within a wetland buffer shall be
preferred over a location within a wetland;
(2) Facilities parallel to the wetland edge are located as far
from the wetland edge as possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance
of soils and vegetation;
(3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to
the minimum necessary, which may include placement on elevated structures as
an alternative to fill, where feasible;
(4) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance
with subsection x, below.
(c) Access to Private Development Sites: Access to private
development sites may be permitted to cross Category II, III, or IV wetlands or
their buffers, pursuant to the criteria in B above, provided that alternative access
shall be pursued to the maximum extent feasible, including through the
provisions of RCW 8.24. Exceptions or deviations from technical standards for
width or other dimensions, and specific construction standards to minimize
impacts may be specified, including placement on elevated structures as an
alternative to fill, if feasible.
(d) Existing Facilities: Maintenance, repair, or operation of
existing structures, facilities, or improved areas, including minor modification of
existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where modification does not
25
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
adversely impact wetland functions, and subject to the provisions for non-
conforming use and facilities in RMC 4-10.
(e) Stormwater Facilities: Stormwater conveyance or
discharge facilities such as dispersion trenches, level spreaders, and outfalls may
be permitted within a Category I, II, III, or IV wetland buffer on a case by case
basis if the following are met:
(1) Due to topographic or other physical constraints, there are
no feasible locations for these facilities to discharge to surface water through
existing systems or outside the buffer. Locations and designs that infiltrate water
shall be preferred over a design that crosses the buffer;
(2) The discharge is located as far from the wetland edge as
possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation and
avoids long term rill or channel erosion.
(f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor
recreational or educational activities which do not significantly affect the
function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife management or
viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting
blinds, etc.) may be permitted within a Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their
buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
(1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be
surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks;
26
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent
(50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within
the wetland is required for interpretive purposes;
(3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in
manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities
within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill;
(4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection x,
below.
x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect
wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no
net loss of wetland function and values in accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7 and
this subsection. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland
alternation and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve
equivalent wetland functions and values.
(a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing
shall take place in the prioritized order provided for in RMC 4-3-090D.2.a.iii.
(b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required:
Wetland mitigation requirements shall be consistent with the applicable
standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of: Washington State
Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and
27
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, Olympia, WA,
except in cases when this code provides differing standards.
(c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland
alterations shall occur in the following order of preference:
i. Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were
formerly wetlands.
ii. Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or
restoring natural and/or historic functions.
iii. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those
consisting primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species.
iv. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands.
v. Preserving Category I or II wetlands that are under
imminent threat, provided that preservation shall only be allowed in
combination with other forms of mitigation and when the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee determines
that the overall mitigation package fully replaces the functions and values lost
due to development.
(d) Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory
mitigation for wetland alterations shall be based on the wetland category and
the type of mitigation activity proposed. The replacement ratio shall be
determined according to the ratios provided in the table below. The created, re-
established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at a minimum provide
28
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a level of function equivalent to the wetland being altered and shall be located in
an appropriate landscape setting.
Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio*
Wetland
Category
Creation
establishment
Rehabilitation Enhancement
Only
Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 2:1 3:1
Category III 2:1 2.1 3:1 4:1
Category II 3:1 3.1 4:1 6:1
Category 1 6:1 6:1 8:1 Not allowed
*Ratio is the replacement area: impact area.
(e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts:
Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of
degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious
surfaces within buffers, and other measures.
(f) Special Requirements for Mitigation Banks: Mitigation
banks shall not be subject to the replacement ratios outlined in the replacement
ratio table above, but shall be determined as part of the mitigation banking
agreement and certification process.
(g) Buffer Requirements for Replacement Wetlands:
Replacement wetlands established pursuant to these mitigation provisions shall
have adequate buffers to ensure their protection and sustainability. The buffer
shall be based on the category in subsection c.ii, above, provided that the
29
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee shall have the authority to approve a smaller buffer when existing site
constraints (such as a road) prohibit attainment of the standard buffer.
(h) Adjustment of Ratios: The Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have
the authority to adjust these ratios when a combination of mitigation
approaches is proposed. In such cases, the area of altered wetland shall be
replaced at a 1:1 ratio through re-establishment or creation, and the remainder
of the area needed to meet the ratio can be replaced by enhancement at a 2:1
ratio. For example, impacts to one (1) acre of a Category II wetland requiring a
3:1 ratio for creation can be compensated by creating one (1) acre and
enhancing four (4) acres (instead of the additional two (2) acres of creation that
would otherwise be required).
(i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-
site or off-site in the location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and
have the greatest likelihood of success, provided that mitigation occurs as close
as possible to the impact area and within the same watershed sub-basin as the
permitted alteration.
(j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off-site
shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure
protection of critical area functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent
30
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective
covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E.4.
(k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the
appropriate season based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as
soon as possible after the permitted alteration.
(I) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation
plans shall be prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050M.16. All compensatory
mitigation projects shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but generally not for a period less than
five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually
for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent reporting shall
be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and
contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have
the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period and require additional
monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions
apply:
i. The project does not meet the performance standards
identified in the mitigation plan;
ii. The project does not provide adequate replacement for
the functions and values of the impacted critical area;
31
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. The project involves establishment of forested plant
communities, which require longer time for establishment.
xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards
for adjacent development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and
shall include:
(a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient
building area outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented
whenever feasible to provide a rear yard of at least twenty feet (20') between
the buffer area and buildings;
(b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential
development to limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas;
(c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far from
the wetland and buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots and loading
areas, mechanical or ventilating equipment shall be located on sides of buildings
away from the wetland, or separated by noise attenuating walls;
(d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetlands shall be
limited by locating areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland
boundary, or limiting light mounting heights to a maximum of four feet (4).
Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the side of buildings
facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below;
32
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(e) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the
maximum extent feasible, to provide groundwater interflow recharge to
wetlands and/or water bodies and to limit overland flow and erosion;
(f) Surface or piped storm water should be routed to existing
conveyances or to other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where storm
water is routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and
sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible;
(g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other
landscaped areas from entering the buffer, and to prevent washing of fertilizers,
herbicides and pesticides into the buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed
fifteen percent (15%), a ten feet (10') wide swale to intercept runoff or other
effective interception facility approved by the Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee shall be provided at the
edge of the buffer;
(h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management
system including limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within 25
feet of the buffer.
xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain
effective buffer conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be
required for all buffer areas, to include:
(a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including
trees and understory; if existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20)
33
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
trees per acre, planting shall be required consisting of seedlings at a density of
three hundred (300) stems per acre or the equivalent;
(b) Providing a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the
perimeter of the buffer. If existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing
adjacent development from within the buffer. Planting shall be required
equivalent to two (2) rows of three feet (3') high stock of native evergreens at a
triangular spacing of fifteen feet (15'), or three (3) rows of gallon containers at a
triangular spacing of eight feet (8'). Fencing may be required if needed to block
headlights or other sources of light or to provide an immediate effective visual
screen;
(c) Providing a plan for control of invasive weeds, and
removal of existing invasive species;
(d) Providing for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a
period of at least five (5) years, except this provision may be waived for single
family residential lots at the discretion of the Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee.
e. Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide
stormwater management facilities including water quality treatment designed,
constructed, and maintained in accordance with the current stormwater
management standards. Water quality treatment facilities shall be provided for
34
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
moderate alteration of non-conforming structures, uses and sites as provided for
in RMC 4-10-095.
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management
practices for control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all
development in shorelines through approved temporary erosion and sediment
control plan, or administrative conditions.
iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to
avoid or minimize interference with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light
sources that shine directly onto the water. Exterior lighting fixtures shall include
full cut off devices such that glare or direct illumination does not extend into
water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches to ensure that
lights are extinguished when not in use.
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects:
a. General: Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed
and operated to allow the public's visual access to the water and shoreline and
maintain shoreline scenic and aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural
features, such as shoreforms and vegetative cover.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and
criteria shall apply to developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Master Program:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple
use, multi-family and/or multi-lot developments are proposed, primary
35
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
structures shall provide for view corridors between buildings where views of the
shoreline are available from public right-of-way or trails.
ii. Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a height of
no more than thirty-five feet (35') above average finished grade level except at
specific locations specified in Shoreline Bulk Standards Table RMC 4-3-090D.7.
iii. Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Development Adjacent to
Residential or Park Uses: All new or expanded commercial development adjacent
to residential use and public parks shall provide fifteen feet (15') setbacks from
adjacent properties to attenuate proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare,
and may address scale and aesthetic impacts. Fencing or landscape areas may
be required to provide a visual screen.
iv. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be
designed and operated so as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby
properties used for non-commercial purposes, and to prevent hazards for public
traffic. Methods of controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to,
limits on the height of light structure, limits on light levels of fixtures, light
shields, and screening.
v. Reflected Lights to be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to
the water shall employ materials that limit reflected light.
vi. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building
mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features,
such as pitched roofs, to the maximum extent feasible. Where mechanical
36
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
equipment cannot be incorporated into architectural features, a visual screen
shall be provided consistent with building exterior materials that obstructs views
of such equipment.
vii. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to be Minimized:
Facilities not incorporated into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires,
lights, and other free-standing structures shall be designed to minimize visual
prominence.
viii. Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located
within shoreline vegetated buffers shall not exceed four feet (4') in width;
provided that, where ADA requirements apply, such facilities may be increased
to six feet (6') in width. Stairways shall conform to the existing topography to the
extent feasible.
ix. Other Design Standards: Any other design standards included in
community plans or regulations adopted by the City shall be incorporated.
c. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and
land traffic, and other structures and activities shall be considered in the design
plans and their impacts avoided or mitigated.
d. Design Requirements: Architectural styles, exterior designs,
landscaping patterns, and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be in
conformance with urban design and other standards contained in RMC 4-3-100
Urban Design Regulations, and other applicable provisions of RMC Title IV,
37
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Development Regulations, as well as specific policies and standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC 4-4-095 concerning
screening of mechanical equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall
apply within shorelines with the additional criteria that the provisions for
bringing structures or sites into conformance shall occur for minor alteration or
renovation as provided in RMC 4-9-190.
4. Public Access:
a. Physical or Visual Access Required for Mew Development: Physical
or visual access to shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when
the development would either generate a demand for one (1) or more forms of
such access, would impair existing legal access opportunities or rights, or is
required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master
Program. A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline
reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-31 Table
of Public Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for
public access, including off-site facilities designated in the table Public Access
Requirements by Reach in RMC 4-3-090D.4.f.
b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the
following development, subject to the criteria in subsection d.
i. Water-dependent uses and developments that increase public use
of the shorelines and public aquatic lands, or that would impair existing legal
38
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
access opportunities, or that utilize public harbor lands or aquatic lands, or that
are developed with public funding or other public resources.
ii. Non-water-dependent development and uses shall provide
community and/or public access consistent with the specific use standards in
RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations unless ecological restoration is provided.
iii. Developments of more than ten (10) single-family residential lots
or single-family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a
contiguously owned parcel are required to provide public access. Developments
of more than four (4), but less than ten (10) single-family residential lots or
single-family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a
contiguously owned parcel are required to provide community access.
iv. Development of any non-single family residential development or
use consistent with the specific use standards in RMC 4-3-090E.9 Residential
Development.
v. Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single-family
residential use of the shoreline, including docks accessory to single-family
residential use.
vi. Publicly financed or subsidized flood control or shoreline
stabilization shall not restrict public access to the shoreline and shall include
provisions for new public access to the maximum extent feasible.
39
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
vii. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities,
and rights of way shall not be diminished by any public or private development
or use (RCW 35.79.035 and RCW 36.87.130).
c. Criteria for Modification of Public Access Requirements: The
requirements for public access may be modified as a Shoreline Conditional Use
for any application in which the following criteria are demonstrated to be met in
addition to the general criteria for a shoreline conditional use permit. In cases
where a Substantial Development Permit is not required, use of this waiver or
modification may take place only through a shoreline variance. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met. As a
condition of modification of access requirements, contribution to an off-site
public access site shall be required.
i. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that
cannot be prevented by any practical means.
ii. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied
through the application of alternative design features or other solutions.
iii. The cost of providing the access, or mitigating the impacts of
public access, is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term
development and operational cost over the life-span of the proposed
development.
iv. Significant environmental impacts will result from the public
access that cannot be mitigated.
40
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
v. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access
provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot
be mitigated.
vi. Prior to determining that public access is not required, all
reasonable alternatives must be pursued, including but not limited to:
(a) Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate
and/or limiting hours of use;
(b) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences,
terracing, use of one-way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and
(c) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access,
including viewing platforms that may be physically separated from the water's
edge, but only if access adjacent to the water is precluded.
d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate
the following location and design criteria:
i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public
access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall
consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property.
The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set
back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to
sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be
provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and
where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and
41
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
limited to four (4) to six (6) feet in width to reduce impacts to ecologically
sensitive resources.
ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space:
Public access on sites or portions of sites not including vegetated open space
shall be not less than ten percent (10%) of the developed area within shoreline
jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is greater, on
developments including non-water-dependent uses. For water-dependent uses,
the amount and location may be varied in accordance with the criteria in
subsection 4-3-090F.3. Public access facilities shall extend along the entire water
frontage, unless such facilities interfere with the functions of water-dependent
uses. The minimum width of public access facilities shall be ten feet (10') and
shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the development
provided that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle & Trails Master Plan shall
be developed in accordance with the standards of that plan.
iii. Access Requirements for Overwater Structures: Public access on
over-water structures on public aquatic lands, except for docks serving a single-
family residence, shall be provided and may include common use of walkway
areas. Moorage facilities serving five (5) or more vessels shall provide a publicly
accessible area of at least ten feet (10') at or near the end of the structure-
Public marinas serving twenty (20) or more vessels may restrict access to specific
moorage areas for security purposes as long as an area of at least ten percent
(10%) of the over-water structure is available for public access and an area of at
42
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
least twenty (20) square feet is provided at or near the end of the structure
Public access areas may be used in common by other users, but may not include
adjacent moorage that obstructs public access to the edge of the water or
obstructs views of the water.
iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where city trail or
transportation plans and development standards specify dimensions that differ
from those in subsections i, ii, or iii, above, the standard that best serves public
access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of
ecological functions, shall prevail.
v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated
program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the
Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element, Policy SH-31 Table of
Public Access Objectives by Reach and in subsection f- Table of Public Access
Requirements by Reach (RMC 4-3-090D.4.f):
(a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as
guidance in applying these provisions to individual development sites.
(b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as
guidance in planning and implementing public projects.
vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for
off-site public access and may assess charges to new development that do not
meet all or part of their public access requirements. Such a fund and charges
43
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
may be part of or coordinated with park impact fees. Off-site public access shall
be developed in accordance with the reach policies for public access.
e. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall
incorporate the following design and other features,
i. Relation to other facilities:
(a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent
to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest
public street, and include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired
persons, where feasible.
(b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four
hundred feet (400') of a public street, on-street public parking shall be provided,
where feasible. For private developments required to provide more than twenty
(20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to the required
parking for the development at a ratio of one (1) space per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one (1) space per
five thousand (5,000) square feet of public access area for more than three (3)
spaces. Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the
public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area
is handicapped accessible.
(c) Planned Trails To Be Provided: Where public trails are
indicated on the City's transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails
shall be provided within shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site.
44
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. Design:
(a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general
public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view
the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close
horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible, provided that
public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an
unmitigated reduction in ecological functions.
(b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of
adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or
outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation
techniques.
iii. Use and Maintenance:
(a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public
access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of
occupancy of the use or activity or in accordance with other provisions for
guaranteeing installation through a monetary performance assurance.
(b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access
facilities shall be maintained over the life of the use or development. Future
actions by successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the
usefulness or value of required public access areas and associated
improvements.
45
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) Public Access Must be Legally Recorded: Public access
provisions on private land shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal
instrument such as an easement, or as a dedication on the face of a plat or short
plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior to the time of building
occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first.
(d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public
access facility shall be the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted
by a public or non-profit agency through a formal recorded agreement.
(e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to
the public twenty-four (24) hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is
granted though the initial shoreline permitting process for the project. Changes
in access hours proposed after initial permit approval shall be processed as a
shoreline conditional use.
(f) Signage Required: The standard state-approved logo or
other approved signs that indicate the public's right of access and hours of
access shall be installed and maintained by the owner. Such signs shall be posted
in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to
an off-site public right of way.
46
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
f. Public Access Requirements by Reach: The followinR table identifies the performance standards for public
access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required bvthe use regulations or development standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE
REACH
Public Access
Lake Washington
Lake Washington Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
Reach A and B occurs consistent with standards of this section.
Lake Washington
The potential for provision of public access from new development will occur after cleanup of
the Superfund site with multi-use development, which shall include shoreline access across the
entire property, with controlled access to the water's edRe, consistent with requirements for
vegetation conservation and ecological restoration and provisions for water-dependent use,
Reach C consistent with standards of this section. Provision of public access from future redevelopment
of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site shall include a continuous public access trail parallel to the
shoreline with controlled public access balanced with provisions for ecological restoration, as
well as to shared or commercial docks, consistent with standards of this section.
Lake Washington Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
Reach D and E occurs consistent with standards of this section.
Lake Washington Public access is one element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
Reach F and G future plans and balanced with goals for recreation and improving ecoloRic functions.
Lake Washington
Reach H
Public access should continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the balance of
the property consistent with standards of this section. Development should include supporting
water-oriented uses and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Lake Washington
Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of upland state-owned aquatic lands
managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped, public access should be
Reach 1 provided parallel to the shoreline along the entire property, consistent with standards of this
section, together with goals for ecological restoration and water-dependent and water-
47
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
SHORELINE
REACH
Public Access
oriented use.
Lake Washington
ReachJ
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the Will Rogers, Wilev
Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be maintained if such access is not in conflict with
the aeronautical use of the property.
Lake Washington
Reach K
If redevelopment of non-single-familv use occurs, public access shall consist of a public
pedestrian walkway parallel to the shoreline along the entire property frontage with controlled
access to the water's edge, consistent with standards of this section and requirements for
vegetation conservation and ecological restoration. Public access shall be provided when lots
are subdivided consistent with standards of this section.
Mav Creek
Mav Creek A If development occurs adjacent to the streamside, open space standards for vegetation
conservation and public access shall be met consistent with standards of this section.
Mav Creek B
At the time of re-development, public access should be provided consistent with standards of
this section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public
access to the water consistent with standards of this section, and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
Mav Creek C and
D
At the time of development of private lands, public access should be provided consistent with
standards of this section from a trail parallel to the water consistent with trails on public land.
All trail development should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water and consistent with standards of this section and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided if the Renton
Municipal Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
Cedar River B
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands adjacent to the
river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated bv public streets should provide active
open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the
water's edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part of public park and
48
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
SHORELINE
REACH
Public Access
river maintenance plans.
Cedar River C
Public/community access along the waterfront should be provided as private lands on the north
side of the river redevelop, considered along with the goal of restoration of ecological
functions. Public or community access shall be provided when residential development occurs
consistent with standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Cedar River D
The primary goal for management of this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional
public access to the water's edge mav be provided if consistent with ecological functions.
Public access shall be provided when residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards
of this section.
Green River
Reach A
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail
rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. Expansion of
public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological
functions.
Black
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if
River/Springbrook consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream
A adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to
connect to the Lake to Sound trail.
Springbrook B Enhancement of the trail system on the WSDOT right of way that crosses under 1-405 should be
implemented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions.
Springbrook C
If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting to the existing
trails system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
Lake Desire
Lake Desire
If the existing boat launch area is altered in the future, public access other than boating
facilities should include a viewing area. There is currently no formal public access to the water
at the Natural Area at the south end of the lake or the County designated Natural Area at the
north end of the lake. Interpretive access should be implemented consistent with standards of
49
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
SHORELINE
REACH
Public Access
this section and goals for preservation and restoration of ecological values. Public access shall
be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development occurs consistent
with standards of this section.
50
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
5. Building and Development Location- Shoreline Orientation:
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent,
water-related, and water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the
shoreline. Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land
alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation
conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian,
nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect
archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values.
b. Design and Performance Standards:
i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed
in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing
ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation
characteristics of the site shall accompany development proposals, provided that
an individual single-family residence on a parcel less than twenty-thousand
(20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments
shall include the following general information:
(a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological
functions with clear designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow,
wildlife movement, and other features.
51
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services,
lighting and other features, together with the effects of those infrastructure
improvements on shoreline ecological functions.
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site
alteration in sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the
following criteria:
(a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be
designed to limit clearing, grading, and alteration of topography and natural
features.
(b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be
limited through the use of under-building parking or permeable surfaces where
feasible.
(c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and
rights of way wherever feasible.
(d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the
need for structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development-
Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is
necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-dependent uses, where no
alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will
result.
iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or
use that does not require a shoreline location shall be located outside of
52
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is required to serve approved
water-oriented uses and/or developments or unless otherwise allowed in a High
Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or
developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities,
signs and storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water
interface and landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved
uses unless a location closer to the water is reasonably necessary.
v. Navigation and Recreation to be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall
not deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-
related recreation shall be preserved.
6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources:
a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May be Required: The City will work
with tribal, state, federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify
significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of
applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from general
public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with
undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural
resources.
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified
or probable historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to
coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that
appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology
53
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have
ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application
for a development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City
shall require a site assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or
historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified parties
including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological
sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that
portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find
reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such
find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall
provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for
avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate
agencies.
e. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are
encouraged to provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if
54
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource
identified on a property.
7. Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height:
a. Shoreline Bulk Standards: This table establishes the minimum
required dimensional requirements for development including all structures and
substantial alteration of natural topography. Additional standards may be
established in subsection RMC 4-3-090E, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations
and subsection RMC 4-3-090F, Shoreline Modification.
55
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Table 4-3-090 D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards
ro
3
*•>
ro
Z
c
CO
y
c
ro
>
OJ
C o u
CD
W
C
i/i
0)
c
"53 _>
o r
m i
ro
to u.
> >
'Co
c c
OJ
•4-> "D
c c QJ
JZ ro
W M o
x X
ro
2
Setbacks and Buffers
Structure Setback from Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWMl-
Minimum1
Water-dependent Use 100 ft. 100 ft. None2 None2 None
Water-related or Water 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.3 100 ft.4 None
Eniovment Use
Non-Water-oriented Use 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.3 100 ft.5 None
Front Yard,' Side Yard, and Rear Governed bv underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 except in cases where specific
Yard Setbacks shoreline performance standards provide otherwise. Variance from the front
and side vard standards mav be granted administratively if needed to meet the
established setback from OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard
variance criteria are met.
Vegetation Conservation Buffer 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.3 100 ft.4'5 None
Building Height- Maximum
In water Not
allowed
Not
allowed
35 ft.6 35 ft.6 35 ft.6
Within 100 ft. of OHWM Not
allowed
Not
allowed
35 ft. 7 35 ft.8 Governed bv
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2 9
More than 100 ft. from OHWM 15 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.7 35 ft.8 Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
56
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ro
3
*->
ro
Z
c
ro
>
u
c
ro
>
cu
in
C o u
w
c
cu
c
"53
1-o j=
if)
C
Oil
•a
c
Oli
"SI •a ro
3
a
4-2 9
Accessory Building 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Same as
above
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2 9
Coverage Standards
Impervious Area within the Not 5%10 5%10 5%10 Governed bv
Buffer/Setback allowed underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
Impervious Area within 100 ft. of Not 10%n 50%" 50%n Governed bv
OHWM- Maximum allowed underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
Lot Coverage for Buildings within 5%12 5%.12 25%12 None12 Governed bv
100 ft. of OHWM- Maximum underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
Lot Coverage for Buildings more 5% 15% 35% Governed Governed bv
than 100 ft. from OHWM-Maximum by
underlying
zoning in
RMC 4-2
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
57
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Table Notes:
1. Architectural features of buildings, such as eaves or balconies, and other building elements above the first
floor mav project a maximum of five feet (5') into the buffer/setback area as established in this table, or as
modified by RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
2. Setback shall be the maximum determined by the specific needs of the Water-dependent Use and shall not
apply to a structure housing any other use.
3. Building setback and buffer mav be based on lot depth as provided in RMC 4-3-090F.1.C
4. Water-oriented uses mav be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation Conservation
Buffer is varied in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation. Buildings shall be no closer than
fifty feet (50'), except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this section.
5. Non-water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation
Conservation Buffer is varied in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation. Buildings shall be
no closer than seventy-five feet (75'), except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the
adoption of this section.
6. Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use, except as consistent
with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this section.
58
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
7. If the maximum allowed height in the underlying zoning is less than the maximum allowed height in the
Shoreline Overlay, a non-shoreline variance from the standard in RMC 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and
Standards, must be obtained from the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee to allow any height over the amount allowed in the underlying zone.
8; Additional height mav be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use. Height up to that
established in RMC 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, may be allowed for non water-dependent uses
in the following reaches:
Lake Washington Reaches C, H, I, and J; Cedar River Reaches A, B, and C; Black River Reach A; Mav Creek
Reach B; and Springbrook Creek Reaches B, C, and D:
a. For buildings landward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the maximum building height shall be defined
by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall:
i. Begin along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from OHWM at a height of either thirty-five
feet (35') or one half (1/2) the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone, whichever is greater; and
ii. Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of one (1) vertical to one (1) horizontal from the beginning
height either (a) until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 is
59
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
reached (from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the
underlying zoning), or (b) to the end of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
b. For buildings allowed waterward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWIVl through a modified setback, the
maximum building height shall be as follows:
i. Between the modified setback line and the line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from OHWIVl,
the maximum building height shall be defined by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall:
(a) Begin at a height of thirty-five feet (35') along the line of the modified setback; and
(b) Have an upward, landward transition at a slope of one (1) vertical to one (1) horizontal from the
beginning height either until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in
RMC 4-2 is reached (from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height
allowed in the underlying zoning) or to the line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from
OHWM, whichever comes first; and
ii. Landward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the applicant shall have the option of choosing the
maximum building height defined by either:
(a) Using the maximum allowable building height envelope described in Table Note 8.a, above; or
60
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Having the maximum allowable building height envelope described in Table Note 8,b.i, above, continue
an upward, landward transition at a slope of one (1) vertical to one (1) horizontal from the envelope's
height along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100') from OHWM either until the line at
which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 is reached (from which line
the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning),
or to the end of shoreline jurisdiction, whichever comes first.
9, Height is governed by the underlying standards in RMC 4-2, provided that if a property is separated from
OHWM by an intervening parcel in separate ownership and the distance from OHWM is less than one hundred
feet (100'), the height adjacent to the intervening parcel in separate ownership and the distance from OHWM
is less than one hundred feet (100'), the height adjacent to the intervening parcel is limited to an increase over
the maximum allowed use of the intervening parcel at a slope of one (1) vertical to one (1) horizontal.
10. Up to five percent (5%) impervious surface is allowed in Vegetation Conservation buffers/setbacks for access
to the shoreline, or a pathway up to six feet (6') wide, whichever is greater. In addition, for projects that
provide public access and the opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shoreline, up to
twentv-five percent (25%) impervious surface is allowed, provided that no more than five percent (5%)
impervious surface is allowed closer than twentv-five feet (25') from OHWM.
61
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
11. In cases where the depth of the VeRetation Conservation buffer/setback is modified in accordance with RMC
4-3-090F.1 VeRetation Conservation, that portion of the first one hundred feet (100') from OHWM upon which
development is to be located is permitted a maximum of fifty percent (50%) impervious surface, unless a
different standard is stated below:
Lake Washington Reaches H and 1 - Up to seventy-five percent (75%) impervious surface, except as consistent
with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this section.
Lake Washington Reach J - No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport-
Cedar River Reach A - No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B and C - No limit to impervious surface.
Cedar River Reach D - No more than five percent (5%) impervious surface.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D - No more than sixty-five percent (65%) impervious surface.
12. No building coverage is allowed in Vegetation Conservation buffers. If the buffer depth is modified in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation, that portion of the first one hundred feet (100')
from OHWM upon which development is to be located shall be permitted the followinR coveraRe:
Lake Washington High Intensity Overlay District- Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage, except as
consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this section.
62
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Cedar River Reach A - Up to twenty percent (20%) for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B - No limit on building coverage-
Cedar River Reach C - Up to sixty-five percent (65%) building coverage, or up to seventy-five percent (75%) if
parking is provided within a building or parking garage (parking stall mav not be located within one hundred
feet (100') of OHWM).
Cedar River Reach D - No more than five percent (5%) building coverage.
Green River A - Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage.
Springbrook Creek Reach A - No more than five percent (5%) building coverage.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D - Up to fifty percent (50%) building coverage.
63
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
p. City-wide Development Standards: Table RMC 4-3-090D.7 replaces
the standards of the underlying zone in RMC 4-2 for those specific standards
enumerated. All other standards of the Renton development regulations, flood
control regulations, subdivision regulations, health regulations, and other
adopted regulatory provisions apply within shoreline jurisdiction. In the event
the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program conflict with provisions of other
City regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail.
c. Measurement:
i. Horizontal measurement shall be measured outward on a plane
and in the direction that results in the greatest dimension from property lines, or
from other features specified.
ii. Height is measured consistent with the definition of "Building
Height" in RMC 4-11-020.
d. Activities Exempt from Buffers and Setbacks: The following
development activities are not subject to buffers and setbacks, provided that
they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse
impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and provided further that they comply
with all the applicable regulations in RMC Title 4:
i. Water-Dependent Development: Those portions of approved
water-dependent development that require a location waterward of the OHWM
of streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, marine shorelines, associated wetlands, and/or
within their associated buffers.
64
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities, including
stormwater outfalls and conveyance pipes.
iii. Modifications Necessary for Agency Compliance: Modifications to
existing development that are necessary to comply with environmental
requirements of any agency, when otherwise consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program, provided that the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee determines that:
(a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and
accomplish the purpose for which it is intended;
(b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet
specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and
(c) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for
non-conforming development and uses.
iv. Necessary Access: Roads, railways, and other essential public
facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-
dependent development subject to development standards in subsection E, Use
Regulations.
v. Stairs and Walkways: Stairs and walkways not greater than five
feet (5') in width or eighteen inches (18') in height above grade, except for
railings.
65
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
vi. Essential Public Facilities: An essential public facility or public
utility where the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee determines that:
(a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and
accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and
(b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet
specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible.
vii. Shared Moorage: Shared moorages shall not be subject to side
yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common
by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal
instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility.
viii. Flood Storage: Approved compensating flood storage areas.
8. Private Property Rights: Regulation of private property to implement any
Program goals such as public access and protection of ecological functions must
be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These
include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable federal and state
case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328, 43.21C.060, and 82.02.020.
The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development
or designee shall have the authority to make findings concerning public access
regarding nexus and proportionality on any shoreline permit.
66
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
9. Treaty Rights: Rights reserved or otherwise held by Indian Tribes pursuant to
Treaties, Executive Orders, or Statutes, including right to hunt, fish, gather, and the right
to reserved water, shall not be impaired or limited by any action taken or authorized by
the City under its Shoreline Master Program, and all rights shall be accommodated.
E. USE REGULATIONS:
1. Shoreline Use Table:
Uses specified in the table below are subject to the use and development
standards elsewhere in this section and the policies of the Shoreline Master
Program.
67
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Table 4-3-090E.1 Shoreline Use Table:
KEY: X= Prohibited, P- Permitted, AD- Administrative Conditional Use Permit, H= Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Natural Urban
Conservancy
Single-
Family
Residential
Aquatic High Intensity High Intensity
isolated
RESOURCE
Aquaculture E_ Pi X P P X
Mining X X X X X X
Preservation and Fi p P Pi Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Enhancement of table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
Natural Features or underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are prohibited in this
Ecological Processes allowed in this overlay district, subject table, land uses
Low intensity jpi p P p8 to the preference for water-oriented allowed in the
Scientific, Cultural, uses. Land uses in the underlving underlying zoning
Historic, or zoning that require an administrative in RMC 4-2-060
Educational use (AD) or Hearing Examiner (H) are allowed in this
Fish and wildlife E! p P Pi conditional use permit in the underlving overlay district.
resource zoning require the corresponding
enhancement shoreline conditional use permit.
RESIDENTIAL
Detached dwellings X Pi Pi X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Attached dwellings X X X X table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
Accessory Dwelling X AD AD X underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are prohibited in this
Units allowed in this overlay district, subject table, land uses
Group Homes 1 X X X X to the preference for water-oriented allowed in the
Group Homes II (for X X P X uses. Land uses in the underlving underlving zoning
six or fewer zoning that require an administrative in RMC 4-2-060
residents) (AD) or Hearing Examiner (H) are allowed in this
Group Homes II (for X X H X conditional use permit in the underlying overlay district.
68
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
seven or more zoning require the corresponding
residents} shoreline conditional use permit.
Adult Family Home X X H X
CIVIC USES
K-12 Educational X X P X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Institution (public or table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
private) underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are prohibited in this
Roads (not providing X X H X allowed in this overlay district, subject table, land uses
direct access to to the preference for water-oriented allowed in the
permitted or uses. Land uses in the underlying underlving zoning
conditional uses) zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
COMMERCIAL USES
Home occupations X P AD X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Adult Day Care 1 X X AD X table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
Adult Day Care II X X H X underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlving
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
RECREATION
Parks, neighborhood H1 H6 P p8 Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Parks, H! AD5 table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
regional/community underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are prohibited in this
69
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Passive Recreation H1 p P Pi allowed in this overlay district, subject table, land uses
Public hiking and bi Fi £ X to the preference for water-oriented allowed in the
bicycle trails, over uses. Land uses in the underlying underlving zoning
land zoning that require an administrative in RMC 4-2-060
Active Recreation X pi P p8 (AD) or Hearing Examiner (H) are allowed in this
Boat launches X p X p8 conditional use permit in the underlying overlav district.
Mooring Piles X p P p8 zoning require the corresponding
Boat moorage X p P p8 shoreline conditional use permit.
Boat lifts X X Pi pB
Boat houses X X X X
Golf courses X H! H X
Marinas X X AD6 P8
Expansion of existing AD10 AD10 AD10 AD10 X
overwater trails
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial Use X X X Hi Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlving
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlying
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
Except for the land
uses specificallv
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
UTILITIES
Structures for bi £ P fi Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Floodwav table, land uses allowed in the uses specifically
Management, underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are prohibited in this
including drainage or allowed in this overlay district, subject table, land uses
70
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
storage and pumping
facilities
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Local service utilities X Pi Pi ri
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Major service utilities X H! Hf M! fi Pi
ACCESSORY USES
Parking areas P3 P3 1 X Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Roads X Pi Pi X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Bed and Breakfast
House
X X AD X
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Sea Plane Moorage X X P P8
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Helipads X X P Pi
Except for the land uses specified in this
table, land uses allowed in the
underlving zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are
allowed in this overlay district, subject
to the preference for water-oriented
uses. Land uses in the underlying
zoning that require an administrative
(AD) or Hearing Examiner (H)
conditional use permit in the underlving
Except for the land
uses specifically
prohibited in this
table, land uses
allowed in the
underlving zoning
in RMC 4-2-060
are allowed in this
overlay district.
Helipads X X P Pi
zoning require the corresponding
shoreline conditional use permit.
USES NOT SPECIFIED X X bi Hi id! X
Table Notes:
L Provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area.
2, Use is allowed, but structures shall not be placed within the shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Allowed only to serve approved or conditional uses, but should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction if
feasible.
71
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
4. Limited to existing lots, or clustered subdivisions that retain sensitive areas.
5; Includes uses customarily incidental to and subordinate to the primary use, and located on the same lot.
6. Existing use is permitted, but new use is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit.
7. Allowed as accessory to a residential dock provided that: all lifts are placed as far waterward as feasible and
safe; and platform lifts are fully grated.
8. Only allowed if the use is water-dependent.
9. If the unspecified use is prohibited in the underlving zoning it is also prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
10. No new overwater trails shall be allowed unless it is part of the expansion of an existing overwater trail or
overwater trail system. Such expansions shall be considered a conditional use if allowed in the Public Access
Requirements by Reach Table at RMC 4-3-090D.4.f and if impacts are limited.
72
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
2. Aquaculture:
a. No Net Loss Required: Aquaculture shall not be permitted in areas
where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions and shall be designed
and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, or establish new
non-native species which cause significant ecological impacts.
b. Aesthetics: Aquaculture facilities shall not significantly impact the
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
c. Structure Requirements: All structures over or in the water shall
meet the following restrictions:
i. They shall be securely fastened to the shore.
ii. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the
natural systems of the waterway including, for example, water flow and quality,
fish circulation, and aquatic plant life.
iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the
water, such as swimming and/or boating.
iv. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline
uses, if potential conflicts exist.
3. Boat Launching Ramps:
a. Boat Launching Ramps Shall be Public: Any new boat launching ramp
shall be public, except those related to a marina, water-dependent use, or
providing for hand launching of small boats with no provisions for vehicles or
motorized facilities
73
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. No Net Loss Required: Choice of sites for boat launching ramps shall
ensure no net loss of ecological functions through assessment of the shoreline
conditions and impacts of alteration of those conditions, as well as the
disturbance resulting from the volume of boat users.
c. Consideration of Impacts on Adjacent Uses: Launch ramps locations
shall consider impacts on adjacent uses including:
i. Traffic generation and the adequacy of public streets to service.
ii. Impacts on adjacent uses, including noise, light, and glare.
iii. Hours of operation may be restricted to assure compatibility.
iv. Potential impacts on aquatic habitat, including impacts of
disturbance by boats using the facility.
d. Water and Shore Characteristics:
i. Water depth shall be deep enough off the shore to allow use by
boats without maintenance dredging.
ii. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be
suitable for ramp activity.
e. Topography: The proposed area shall not present major geological or
topographical obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Site
adaptation such as dredging shall be minimized.
f. Design to Ensure Minimal Impact: The ramp shall be designed so as
to allow for ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline
and water surface.
74
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
g. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast
concrete, or other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or
cinders, will not be used. The material chosen shall be appropriate considering
the following conditions:
i. Soil characteristics;
ii. Erosion;
iii. Water currents;
iv. Waterfront conditions;
v. Usage of the ramp;
vi. Durability; and
vii. Avoidance of contamination of the water.
h. Shore Facilities Required:
i. Adequate on-shore parking and maneuvering areas shall be
provided based on projected demand. Provision shall be made to limit use to
available parking to prevent spillover outside designated parking areas.
ii. Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained
from the appropriate City department.
4. Commercial and Community Services:
a. Use Preference and Priorities: New commercial and community
services developments are subject to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: Water-dependent commercial and
community service uses shall be given preference over water-related and water-
75
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
enjoyment commercial and community service uses. Prior to approval of water-
dependent uses, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee shall review a proposal for design, layout,
and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as
a water-dependent use. Water-dependent commercial and community service
uses shall provide public access in a manner that will not interfere with the
water-dependent aspects of the use. The portion of a site not required for
water-oriented use may include multiple use, approved non-water-oriented
uses, ecological restoration, and public access. All uses shall provide public
access in accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.4.f Table of Public Access
Requirements by Reach. On Lake Washington, multiple use development that
incorporates water-dependent use within one hundred feet (10LV) of the OHWM
may not include non-water-oriented uses at the ground level.
ii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related commercial and community
service uses shall not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent
uses. Prior to approval of a water-related commercial or community service use,
review of the design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use
has a functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use provides a
necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses, and/or the proximity
of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more
convenient. On Lake Washington, allowed water-related commercial and
community service uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates
76
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a state-wide interest, including increasing public access and public recreational
opportunities in the shoreline.
iii. Water-Enjoyment Uses: Water-enjoyment commercial and
community service uses shall not be approved if they displace existing water-
dependent or water-related uses or if they occupy space designated for water-
dependent or water-related use identified in a substantial development permit
or other approval. Prior to approval of water-enjoyment uses, review of the
design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm that the use facilitates
public access to the shoreline as, or the use provides for, aesthetic enjoyment of
the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a primary characteristic of
the use. The ground floor of the use must be ordinarily open to the general
public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to
the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. On Lake
Washington, allowed water-enjoyment commercial uses shall be evaluated in
terms of whether the use facilitates a state-wide interest, including increasing
public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented commercial and
community service uses may be permitted where:
(a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline
by another private property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such
that access for water-oriented use is precluded, provided that such conditions
77
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master
Program, or established with the approval of the City; or
(b) Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited
(i.e. all shoreline rivers and creeks), the commercial or community service use
provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and/or
ecological restoration; or
(c) The use is part of a multiple use project that provides
significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act such as:
(1) Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and
upland environments that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to
the standards for the specific Reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
Conservation and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan or
other plans and policies including the WRIA 8 Salmon Restoration Plans; or
(2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to
ecological restoration and associated buffers shall be provided as public access.
Community access may be allowed subject to the provisions of RMC 4-3-090E.9
Residential Development.
b. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for
those portions of water-dependent commercial uses that require over-water
facilities or for public recreation and public access facilities. Non-water-
dependent commercial uses shall not be allowed over water except in limited
78
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in support of water-
dependent uses.
c. Setbacks: Public access adjacent to the water may be located within
the required setback, subject to the standards for impervious surface in RMC 4-
3-090D.7.a. Setbacks for non-water-oriented commercial buildings and shall be
located no closer than one hundred feet (100") from the OHWM; provided this
requirement may be modified in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
Conservation.
d. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: All new or expanded commercial and
community services developments shall take into consideration the scenic and
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with adjacent uses as
provided in RMC 4-3-090D.3, Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects and RMC 4-
3-090D.5, Facility Arrangement- Shoreline Orientation.
5. Industrial Use:
a. Use Preferences and Priorities: Industrial developments shall be
permitted subject to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: New industrial uses in new structures
within the required setback of the shoreline must be water-dependent.
ii. Existing Non Water-Dependent Uses: Existing non water-
dependent uses may be retained and expanded, subject to provisions for
nonconforming uses activities and sites, provided that expansion of structures
within the required setback between the building and the water shall be
79
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the impacts of the expansion can be
mitigated through on-site measures such as buffer enhancement or low impact
stormwater development. Changes in use are limited to existing structures.
iii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related industrial uses may not be
approved if they displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a
water-related industrial use, review of the design, layout, and operation of the
use shall confirm that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront
location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-
dependent uses, and/or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its
services less expensive and/or more convenient. Allowed water-related
commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a
public interest, including increasing public access and public recreational
opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented industrial uses
may be permitted where:
(a) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline
by another private property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such
that access for water-oriented use is precluded, provided that such conditions
were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master
Program; or
(b) On a site that abuts the water's edge where navigability is
severely limited (i.e. all shoreline rivers and creeks) and where the use provides
80
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act by:
(1) Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and
upland environments that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to
the standards for the specific Reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
Conservation and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan and
other plans and policies including the WRIA 8 and 9 Salmon Restoration Plans; or
(2) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to
ecological restoration and associated buffers shall be provided as public access in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access.
b. Clustering of Non-water-oriented Uses: Any new use of facility or
expansion of existing facilities shall minimize and cluster those water-dependent
and water-related portions of the development along the shoreline and place
inland all facilities which are not water-dependent.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for
those portions of water-dependent industrial uses that require over-water
facilities. Any over-water structure is water-dependent, is limited to the smallest
reasonable dimensions, and is subject to Shoreline Conditional Use approval.
d. Materials Storage: New industrial development may not introduce
exterior storage of materials outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction,
except by approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit subject to the
additional criteria that exterior storage is essential to the use.
81
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall demonstrate that no
spill or discharge to surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstrate
in the permit application a specific program to contain and clean up spills or
discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial use and activity.
f. Offshore Log Storage: Offshore log storage shall only be allowed only
to serve a processing use and shall be located where water depth is sufficient
without dredging, where water circulation is adequate to disperse polluting
wastes and where they will not provide habitat for salmonid predators.
g. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: New or expanded industrial
developments shall take into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of
the shoreline and compatibility with adjacent uses as provided in RMC 4-3-
090D.3 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects and 4-3-090D.5 Facility
Arrangement-Shoreline Orientation.
6. Marinas:
a. Applicability: The standards specified for marinas shall be applied to
all development as described below:
i. Joint use single-family docks serving four (4) or more residences.
ii. Any dock allowed for multi-family uses.
iii. Docks serving all other multiple use facilities including large boat
launches and mooring buoy fields.
b. Lake Washington: Marinas on Lake Washington shall be permitted
only when:
82
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that they
will not result in a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not
interfere with natural geomorphic processes including delta formation, or
adversely affect native and anadromous fish.
ii. Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability.
iii. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the size
and character of moorage facilities provided in accordance with the parking
standards in RMC 4-4-080F. Parking areas not associated with loading areas shall
be sited as far as feasible from the water's edge and outside of vegetated buffers
described in RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
iv. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual
moorage facilities provided.
v. The location of the moorage facilities is adequately served by
public roads.
c. Location Criteria:
i. Marinas shall not be located near beaches commonly used for
swimming unless no alternative location exists, and mitigation is provided to
minimize impacts to such areas and protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
ii. Marinas and accessory uses shall be located only where adequate
utility services are available, or where they can be provided concurrent with the
development.
83
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be designed so
that lawfully existing or planned public shoreline access is not unnecessarily
blocked, obstructed, nor made dangerous,
d. Design Requirements:
i. Marinas shall be designed to result in no net loss of ecological
functions.
ii. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many
water-dependent recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of
the proposal. Features for such access could include, but are not limited to:
docks and piers, pedestrian bridges to offshore structures, fishing platforms,
artificial pocket beaches, and underwater diving and viewing platforms.
iii. Dry upland boat storage is preferred for permanent moorage in
order to protect shoreline ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space,
and minimize consumption of public water surface areas unless:
(a) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or
(b) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer
impacts to ecological functions; or
(c) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance
public use of the shoreline.
iv. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be located and
designed with the minimum necessary shoreline stabilization.
84
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
v. Public access shall be required in accordance with RMC 4-3-
090D.4 Public Access.
vi. Piers and docks shall meet standards in RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and
Docks.
vii. New covered moorage for boat storage is prohibited. Covered
over-water structures may be permitted only where vessel construction or repair
work is to be the primary activity and covered work areas are demonstrated to
be the minimum necessary over water structures. When feasible any covered
overwater structures shall incorporate windows, skylights, or other materials to
allow sufficient light to reach the water's surface.
e. Operation Requirements:
i. Marinas and other commercial boating activities shall be
equipped with facilities to manage wastes, including:
(a) Marinas with a capacity of one hundred (100) or more
boats, or further than one (1) mile from such facilities, shall provide pump-out,
holding, and/or treatment facilities for sewage contained on boats or vessels.
(b) Discharge of solid waste or sewage into a water body is
prohibited. Marinas and boat launch ramps shall have adequate restroom and
sewage disposal facilities in compliance with applicable health regulations.
(c) Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and
maintained by the operator at locations convenient to users.
85
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(d) Disposal or discarding of fish or shellfish cleaning wastes,
scrap fish, viscera, or unused bait into water or in other than designated garbage
receptacles near a marina or launch ramp is prohibited.
(e) Public notice of all regulations pertaining to handling and
disposal of waste, sewage, fuel, oil or toxic materials shall be reviewed and
approved and posted where all users may easily read them.
ii. Fail safe facilities and procedures for receiving, storing,
dispensing, and disposing of oil or hazardous products, as well as a spill response
plan for oil and other products, shall be required of new marinas and expansion
or substantial alteration of existing marinas. Handling of fuels, chemicals, or
other toxic materials must be in compliance with all applicable federal and state
water quality laws as well as health, safety, and engineering requirements. Rules
for spill prevention and response, including reporting requirements, shall be
posted on site.
7. Piers and Docks:
a. General Criteria for Use and Approval of All New or Expanded Piers
and Docks:
i. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with
the public use and enjoyment of the water surface and shoreline, nor create a
hazard to navigation.
ii. The dock or pier shall not result in the unreasonable interference
with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers.
86
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be
encouraged in those areas where scenic values are high and where substantial
conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created.
iv. The expansion of existing piers and docks is preferred over the
construction of new.
v. The responsibility rests on the applicant to affirmatively
demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his/her application for a
permit, except for a dock accessory to a single-family residence on an existing
lot
vi. All piers and docks shall result in no net loss of ecological
functions. Docks, piers, and mooring buoys, including those accessory to single-
family residences, shall avoid, or if that is not possible, minimize and mitigate
adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions such that no net loss of
ecological functions results.
vii. Over-water construction not required for moorage purposes is
regulated as a recreation use.
viii. New or expanded piers and docks allowed for water-dependent
uses shall be consistent with the following criteria:
(a) Water-dependent uses shall specify the specific need for
over-water location and shall be restricted to the minimum size necessary to
meet the needs of the proposed water-dependent use.
87
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Water-related, water-enjoyment and multiple uses may be
allowed as part of a dock or pier to serve as water-dependent use structures
where they are clearly auxiliary to and in support of water-dependent uses,
provided the minimum size requirement needed to meet the water-dependent
use is not violated.
(c) Public access is required over all docks utilizing public
aquatic lands that serve water-dependent uses, water-enjoyment uses and
multiple uses, provided it does not preclude the water-dependent use.
(d) The dock or pier length shall not extend beyond a length
necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage.
b. Additional Criteria for New or Expanded Residential Docks:
i. Single-Family Docks:
(a) Single-Family Joint Use Docks: A pier or dock which is
constructed for private recreation moorage associated with a single-family
residence, for private joint use by two or more single-family waterfront property
owners, or a community pier or dock in new waterfront single-family subdivision,
is considered a water-dependent use provided that it is designed and used only
as a facility to access watercraft owned by the occupants, and to incidental use
by temporary guests. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by
non-residents of piers or docks accessory to residences.
88
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Individual Single-Family Docks: The approval of a new dock
or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a
finding that the following criteria have been met:
(1) A new dock providing for private recreational moorage for
an individual lot may not be permitted in subdivisions approved on or before
January 28, 1993, unless shared moorage is not available, and there is no
homeowners association or other corporate entity capable of developing shared
moorage.
(2) A new dock shall not be allowed for an individual lot in
cases where a joint use dock has been constructed to serve the subject lot.
(3) Prior to approval of a new dock for private recreational
moorage for an individual lot, the owner should demonstrate that adjacent
owners have been contacted and they have declined to develop or utilize a
shared dock. Such information should be provided in the project narrative at the
time of permit submittal.
(4) A new dock should be approved only in cases where use of
a mooring buoy is demonstrated to be impractical for reducing over water
coverage.
ii. Multi-Family Docks: Multi-family residential use is not considered
a water-dependent use under the Shoreline Management Act and moorage for
multi-family residential use shall be provided only when the following criteria are
met:
89
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(a) The dock provides a public benefit of shoreline ecological
enhancement in the form of vegetation conservation buffer enhancement in
accordance with subsection RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation and/or
public access in accordance with subsection RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access;
(b) Moorage at the proposed dock shall be limited to
residents of the apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which
the dock was built;
(c) Multi-family moorage serving more than four (4) vessels
meets the criteria for the approval of marinas in subsection RMC 4-3-090E.6
Marinas.
iii. Shared Docks Required for New Development: Shared moorage
shall be provided for all new residential developments of more than two (2)
single-family dwelling units. New subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the
face of the plat prohibiting individual docks. A site for shared moorage shall be
owned in undivided interest by property owners within the subdivision. Shared
moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for
community access and may be required to provide public access depending on
the scale of the facility. If shared moorage is provided, the applicant/proponent
shall file at the time of plat recordation a legally enforceable joint use
agreement. Approval shall be subject to the following criteria:
90
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(a) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be
limited to the amount of moorage needed to serve lots with water frontage.
Shared moorage use by upland property owners shall be reviewed as a marina.
(b) As few shared docks as possible shall be developed.
Development of more than one (1) dock shall include documentation that a
single dock would not accommodate the need or that adverse impacts on
ecological functions would result from the size of dock required.
(c) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys
for some or all moorage needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow
tender access to mooring buoys.
(d) Public access shall be provided over all shared docks
utilizing public aquatic lands that accommodate five (5) or more vessels.
c. Design Criteria - General:
i. Pier Type: All piers and docks shall be built of open pile
construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no
danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high and
where one (1) or more of the following conditions exist:
(a) Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length
Piling.
(b) A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling.
(c) Bottom conditions that render it not feasible to install
Piling.
91
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. Construction and Maintenance: All piers and docks shall be
constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition.
iii. Approach: Approaches to piers and docks shall consist of ramps or
other structures that span the entire foreshore to the point of intersection with
stable upland soils. Limited fill or excavation may be allowed landward of the
OHWM to match the upland with the elevation of the pier or dock.
iv. Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of
piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks shall use
materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and
animals over the long term. Materials used for submerged portions of a pier or
dock, decking, and other components that may come in contact with water shall
be approved by applicable state agencies for use in water to avoid discharge of
pollutants from wave splash, rain or runoff. Wood treated with creosote,
pentachlorophenol or other similarly toxic materials is prohibited. Pilings shall
be constructed of untreated materials, such as untreated wood, approved plastic
composites, concrete or steel.
v. Pilings: Pile spacing shall be the maximum feasible to minimize
shading and avoid a "wall" effect that would block or baffle wave patterns,
currents, littoral drift, or movement of aquatic life forms, or result in structure
damage from driftwood impact or entrapment. The first piling set shall be
spaced at the maximum distance feasible to minimize shading and shall be no
less than eighteen feet (18'). Pilings beyond the first set of piles shall minimize
92
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the size of the piles and maximize the spacing between piling to the extent
allowed by site-specific engineering or design considerations.
vi. Minimization of Nearshore Impacts: In order to minimize impacts
on nearshore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level:
(a) The width of piers, docks, and floats shall be the minimum
necessary to serve the proposed use.
(b) Ramps shall span as much of the nearshore as feasible.
(c) Dock surfaces shall be designed to allow light penetration.
(d) Lights shall avoid illuminating the water surface. Lighting
facilities shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to locate the pier or
dock at night for docks serving residential uses. Lighting to serve water-
dependent uses shall be the minimum required to accommodate the use and
may not be used when the water-dependent aspects of the use are not in
operation.
vii. Covered Moorage: Covered moorage is not allowed on any
moorage facility unless translucent materials are used that allow light
penetration through the canopy, or through the roof of legal, pre-existing boat
houses. Temporary vessel covers must be attached to the vessel. New boat
houses are not allowed.
viii. Seaplane Moorage: Seaplane moorage may be accommodated at
any dock that meets the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
93
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ix. Other Agency Requirements: If deviation from the design
standards specified in RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks is approved by another
agency with permitting authority, such as the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it shall be approved with a
variance, subject to all conditions and requirements of those permitting
agencies.
d. Design Standards:
Single-Family Joint Use and Commercial and Non-water-
Community Docks Industrial Docks-
Water-dependent
Uses
dependent uses
WHEN ALLOWED:
Maximum of A joint use dock Water- dependent Docks are not
one pier or may be commercial and allowed unless they
dock per constructed for industrial uses may provide public
developed two or more develop docks and access or public
waterfront lot contiguous water piers to the extent water recreation
or ownership. front properties that they are use. Such docks
and may be located required for water-and piers are
on a side property dependent use. subject to the
line, or straddling a Public access shall performance
side property line, be provided in standards for over-
common to both accordance with water structures for
properties or be RMC 4-3-090D.4 recreation in
provided with an Public Access. subsection RMC 4-
access easement 3-090E.8
for all lots served.1 Recreation.
Joint use docks or
piers serving more
than four
residences shall be
regulated as
marinas.
LENGTH-MAXIMUM
Docks and Minimum Minimum needed Minimum needed Docks are not
Piers needed to to provide to serve specific allowed unless thev
provide moorage for the vessels or other provide public
94
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
moorage for a single-family water- dependent access or public
single-family residences or uses specified in water recreation
residence, a community being the application. use. Such docks
maximum of served. Maximum: Maximum: 120 ft. and piers are
one ell and 80 ft. from OHWM. from OHWM.2 subject to the
two fingers. 2 Facilities adjacent performance
Maximum: 80 to a designated standards for over-
ft. from harbor area: The water structures for
OHWM.2 dock or pier may recreation in
extend to the lesser subsection RMC 4-
of: 3-090E.8
a) The General Recreation.
standard, above; or
b) The inner
harbor line or such
point beyond the
inner harbor line as
is allowed by formal
authorization by
the Washington
State Department
of Natural
Resources (DNR) or
other agency with
jurisdiction.
Ells and 26 ft. 26 ft. Minimum needed
Fingers to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Floats 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
WIDTH
Docks and 4 ft.4 6 ft. Maximum Docks are not
Piers walkway: 8 ft., but allowed unless they
12 ft. if vehicular provide public
access is required access or public
for the approved water recreation
3
use. use. Such docks
95
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
and piers are
subject to the
performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection RMC 4-
3-090E.8
Recreation.
Ells and 6 ft. 6 ft. Minimum needed
Floats to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Fingers 2 ft. 2 ft. Minimum needed
to serve specific
vessels or other
water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
Ramp 3 ft. for 3 ft. for walkway, 4 Minimum needed
connecting walkway, 4 ft. ft. total to serve specific
a pier/dock total vessels or other
to a float water- dependent
uses specified in
the application.
PILINGS- MAXIMUMS
Mooring Two piles, up Four piles, up to 12 Minimum needed Docks are not
Piles to 12 in. in in. in diameter, to serve specific allowed unless they
diameter, installed within 24 vessels or other provide public
installed ft. of a dock or pier water- dependent access or public
within 24 ft. of and out of the uses specified in water recreation
a dock or pier nearshore area. the application. use. Such docks
and out of the and piers are
nearshore subject to the
area. performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection RMC 4-
3-090E.8
Recreation.
96
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
SETBACKS-MSN! MUMS
Side No portion of a No portion of a No portion of a pier Docks are not
Setback pier or dock pier or dock mav or dock mav lie allowed unless they
mav lie closer lie closer than 5 ft. closer than 30 ft. to provide public
than 5 ft. to an to an adjacent an adjacent access or public
adjacent property line and property line. water recreation
property line mav not interfere use. Such docks
and may not with navigation. and piers are
interfere with subject to the
navigation. performance
standards for over-
water structures for
recreation in
subsection RMC 4-
3-090E.8
Recreation.
Table Notes:
1. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be executed
and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office prior to the
issuance of permits. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be
provided to the City. Such documents shall specify ownership
rights and maintenance provisions, including: specifying the
parcels to which the agreement shall apply; providing that the
dock shall be owned jointly by the participating parcels and that
the ownership shall run with the land; providing for easements to
access the dock from each lot served and provide for access for
maintenance; providing apportionment of construction and
maintenance expenses; and providing a means for resolution of
disputes, including arbitration and filing of liens and assessments.
97
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
2. Maximum length is eighty feet (80') unless a depth of ten feet
(10') cannot be obtained. In such circumstances the dock may be
extended until the water depth reaches a point often feet (10') in
depth at ordinary low water.
3. Additional width may be allowed to accommodate public access in
addition to the water- dependent use.
4. That portion of a pier or dock beyond thirty feet (30') from
OHWM may be up to six feet (6') wide, without a variance, if
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife; or a pier or dock may be six feet
(6') wide, waterward from land, without a variance, if the
property owner qualifies for state disabled accommodations.
e. Maintenance and Repair of Docks: Existing docks or piers that do
not comply with these regulations may be repaired in accordance with the
criteria below.
i. When the repair and/or replacement of the surface area exceeds
thirty percent (30%) of the surface area of the dock/pier, light penetrating
materials must be used for all replacement decking. For floating docks, light
penetrating materials shall be used where feasible, and as long as the structural
integrity of the dock is maintained.
98
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. When the repair involves replacement of the surfacing materials
only, there is no requirement to bring the dock/pier into conformance with
dimensional standards of this section.
iii. When the repair/replacement involves the replacement of more
than fifty percent (50%) of the pilings, or more, the entire structure shall be
replaced in compliance with these regulations. For floating docks, when the
repair/replacement involves replacement of more than fifty percent (50%) of the
total supporting structure (including floats, pilings, or cross-bars), the entire
structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
iv. When the existing dock/pier is moved or expanded or the shape
reconfigured, the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these
regulations.
f. Buoy and Float Regulations:
i. Buoys Preferred: The use of buoys for moorage is preferable to
piers, docks, or floats and buoys may be sited under a Shoreline Exemption
instead of a Substantial Development Permit, provided they do not exceed the
cost threshold.
ii. Floats: Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions:
(a) The float is served by a dock attached to the shore for use
of only a tender. The dock shall be the minimum length to allow access to a
tender and may not exceed a length of forty feet (40').
99
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides
by small watercraft.
(c) Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100)
square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property
owners may not exceed one hundred and fifty (150) square feet per residence-
Floats for public use shall be sized in order to provide for the specific intended
use and shall be limited to the minimum size necessary.
(d) A single-family residence may only have one (1) float.
(e) Floats shall not be located a distance of more than eighty
feet (80') beyond the OHWM, except public recreation floats.
g. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions:
i. Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those
specified above may be submitted as a shoreline variance application, unless
otherwise specified.
ii. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed
subject to findings that a variance request compiles with:
(a) The general criteria for shoreline variance approval in RMC
4-9-1901.4.
(b) The additional criteria that the allowed dock or pier cannot
reasonably provide the purpose for which it is intended without specific
dimensions to serve specific aspects of a water-dependent use.
100
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) Meets the general criteria for ali new and expanded piers
and docks in subsection RMC4-3-090E.7.a.
8. Recreation:
a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on- and off-
site mitigation.
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-
dependent uses and are consistent with existing water-related and water-
enjoyment uses.
iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation
shall be appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment.
iv. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly
adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other
recreational uses for the public in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4).
b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational
facilities must bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical
or visual access to the shoreline.
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating,
and wading should be located on the shoreline.
ii. Water-related recreation as picnicking, hiking, and walking should
be located near the shoreline.
101
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Non-water-related recreation facilities shall be located inland
Recreational facilities with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing
fields, and facilities with extensive impervious surfaces shall observe vegetation
management standards providing for native vegetation buffer areas along the
shoreline.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures for recreation use
shall be allowed only when:
i. They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to
enjoy the shorelines of the state.
ii. They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional
ecological sensitivity, especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas.
iii. They are integrated with other public access features, particularly
when they provide limited opportunities to approach the water's edge in areas
where public access is set back to protect sensitive ecological features at the
water's edge.
iv. No net loss of ecological functions will result.
d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within
the shoreline only when the following criteria are considered:
i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the
resources and ecology of the shoreline are protected.
ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public
safety needs and in consideration of natural features.
102
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the
diversity of demands of the local community.
iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-
dependent uses and uses are consistent with existing water-related and water-
enjoyment uses.
v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize
detrimental impact on the adjoining property.
vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities
to handle the designed public use.
vii. Effects on private property are consistent with all relevant
constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation or acquisition of private
property.
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner
that provides a balance between providing opportunities for recreation and
restoration and enhancement of the shoreline. Major park development shall be
approved only after a master planning process that provides for a balance of
these elements.
e. Private Recreation:
i. Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from
public aquatic lands are prohibited. Private recreation uses that utilize public
aquatic lands shall provide public access in accordance with criteria in RMC 4-3-
090D.4 Public Access.
103
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted
only when the followinR standards are met:
(a) There is no net loss of ecological functions, includinR on-
and off-site.
(b) There is reasonable public access provided to the shoreline
at no fee for sites providinR recreational uses that are fee supported, includinR
access alonR the water's edRe where appropriate. In the case of Lake
WashinRton, siRnificant public access shall be provided in accordance with public
access criteria in RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access.
(c) The proposed facility will have no siRnificant detrimental
effects on adjacent parcels and uses.
(d) Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that
are separated from pedestrian paths are provided.
(e) Recreational uses are encouraged in multiple use
commercial development.
9. Residential Development:
a. Single-family Priority Use and Other Residential Uses: Single-family
residences are a priority on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58.020). All other residential uses are subject to the preference for
water-oriented use and must provide for meeting the requirements for
ecological restoration and/or public access.
104
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. General Criteria: Residential developments shall be allowed only
when:
i. Density and other characteristics of the development are
consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
ii. Residential structures shall provide setbacks and buffers as
provided in subsection 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified
under subsection 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
c. Public Access Required: Unless deemed inappropriate due to health,
safety, or environmental concerns, new single-family residential developments,
including subdivision of land for ten (10) or more parcels, shall provide public
access in accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access. Unless deemed
inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-family
developments shall provide a significant public benefit such as providing public
access and/or ecological restoration along the water's edge. For such proposed
development, a community access plan may be used to satisfy the public access
requirement if the following written findings are made by the Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee:
i. The community access plan allows for a substantial number of
people to enjoy the shoreline; and
ii. The balance of the waterfront not devoted to public and/or
community access shall be devoted to ecological restoration.
105
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
d. Shoreline Stabilization Prohibited: New residential development
shall not require new shoreline stabilization. Developable portions of lots shall
not be subject to flooding or require structural flood hazard reduction measures
within a channel migration zone or floodway to support intended development
during the life of the development or use. Prior to approval, geotechnical
analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics shall demonstrate that new
shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to support
intended development during the life of the development or use.
e. Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions
for critical areas including avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs,
landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, riparian and marine shoreline
erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable development standards. Setbacks
from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures during the life of the
structure (one hundred (100) years).
f. Vegetation Conservation: All new residential lots shall meet
vegetation conservation provisions in RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation,
including the full required buffer area together with replanting and control of
invasive species within buffers to ensure establishment and continuation of a
vegetation community characteristic of a native climax community. Each lot
must be able to support intended development without encroachment on
vegetation conservation areas, except for public trains and other uses allowed
106
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
within such areas. Areas within vegetation conservation areas shall be placed in
common or public ownership when feasible.
g. New Private Docks Restricted: All new subdivisions shall record a
prohibition on new private docks on the face of the plat. An area reserved for
shared moorage may be designated if it meets all requirements of the Shoreline
Master Program including demonstration that public and private marinas and
other boating facilities are not sufficient to meet the moorage needs of the
subdivision.
h. Floating Residences Prohibited: Floating residences are prohibited.
10. Transportation:
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall
be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline.
To the maximum extent feasible the following standards shall be applied to all
transportation projects and facilities:
i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and
as far from the land/water interface as possible. Expansion of existing
transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options that assess the
potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further
from the land/water interface.
ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant
natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable
impacts.
107
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion,
to permit natural movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water
quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be
disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water
body and shall be specified in submittal materials.
v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection.
vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and
wildlife movement by using bridges with the longest span feasible or when
bridges are not feasible, culverts and other features that provide for these
functions.
vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible
uses as feasible, including, but not limited to: utilities, view point, public access,
or trails.
b. Roads:
i. New public or private roads and driveways shall be located inland
from the land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are required for access to
authorized uses consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; or
(b) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian and non-
motorized use and provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to
108
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
enjoy shoreline areas, and are consistent with policies and regulations for
ecological protection.
ii. Road locations shall be planned to fit the topography, where
possible, in order that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be
necessary.
iii. RCW 36.87.130 prohibits vacation of any right of way that abuts
freshwater except for port, recreational, educational or industrial purposes.
Therefore, development, abandonment, or alteration of undeveloped road ends
within Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction is prohibited unless an alternate
use is approved in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program.
c. Railroads: New or expanded railroads shall be located inland from
the land/water interface and out of the shoreline where feasible. Expansion of
the number of rails on an existing right of way shall be accompanied by meeting
the vegetation conservation provisions for moderate expansion of non-
conforming uses in RMC 4-10-095 Non-conforming Uses, Activities, and Sites.
d. Trails:
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be
located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing
environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of
the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline
trails.
109
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact
on adjacent property owners including privacy and noise.
iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
(a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross
streams, wetlands, or other water bodies.
(b) For interpretive facilities.
(c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the
adverse impacts of at grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential
and impedance of surface and groundwater movement.
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the
context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity
where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be
minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in less
ecologically sensitive areas.
e. Parking:
i. When Allowed: Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred
use and shall be allowed only as necessary to serve an authorized primary use.
ii. Public Parking:
(a) In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public
parking is to be provided at frequent locations on public streets, at shoreline
viewpoints, and at trailheads.
110
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Public parking facilities shall be located as far as feasible
from the shoreline unless parking areas close to the water are essential to serve
approved recreation and public access. In general, only handicapped parking
should be located near the land/water interface with most other parking located
within walking distance and outside of Vegetation Conservation buffers provided
in RMC4-3-090F.1. Vegetation Conservation.
(c) Public parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped
to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the
water view.
iii. Private Parking:
(a) Private parking facilities should be located away from the
shoreline unless parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved
uses and/or developments. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, parking
shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of
water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses.
(b) Surface parking areas shall be located and designed to
minimize visual impacts as viewed from the shoreline and from views of the
shoreline from upland properties.
(c) Parking structures shall be located outside of shoreline
Vegetation Conservation buffers and behind or within the first row of buildings
between the water and the developed portions of a site and designed such that
111
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the frontage visible from the shoreline accommodates other uses and parked
cars are not visible from that frontage.
(d) Parking lot design, landscaping and lighting shall be
governed by the provisions of RMC Chapter 4-4 and the provisions of the
Shoreline Master Program.
f. Aviation:
i. Prohibited Near Natural or Urban Conservancy Areas: Aviation
facilities are prohibited within two hundred feet (200') of a Natural or Urban
Conservancy Shoreline Overlay District.
ii. Airports:
(a) A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the
shoreline; however, an airport already located within a shoreline shall be
permitted.
(b) Upgrades of facilities to meet FAA requirements or
improvements in technology shall be permitted.
(c) Facilities to serve seaplanes may be included as an
accessory use in any existing airport.
(d) Helipads may be included as an accessory use in any
existing airport.
(e) Aviation-related manufacturing shall be permitted in an
airport.
112
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(f) New or upgraded airport facilities shall be designed and
operated such that:
(1) All facilities that are non-water-dependent shall be located
outside of shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. When sited within shoreline
jurisdiction, uses and/or developments such as parking, hangars, service
buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs, and storage of materials shall be
located as far from the land/water interface as feasible. The minimum setback
shall be twenty feet (20') from the OHWM of the shoreline and shall be designed
and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the water's
edge.
(2) New or upgraded airport facilities shall minimize impacts
on shoreline ecological functions, including control of pollutant discharge. The
standards for water quality and criteria for application shall be those in current
stormwater control regulations.
(3) New facilities dispensing fuel or facilities associated with
use of hazardous materials shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
iii. Seaplanes:
(a) Private:
(1) Operation of a single private seaplane on waters where
FAA has designated a Seaplane Landing Area is not regulated by the Shoreline
Master Program.
113
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(2) Moorage of a seaplane is addressed in RMC 4-3-090E.7
Piers and Docks.
(b) Commercial: New commercial seaplane facilities, including
docks and storage area bases may be allowed in industrial areas provided such
bases are not contiguous to residential areas and provided they meet standards
in RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks.
iv. Helicopter Landing Facilities:
(a) Private: Establishment of a helipad on a single-family
residential lot is allowed subject to the standards of RMC 4-2-080A.111.
Conditions shall be imposed to mitigate impacts within the shoreline.
(b) Commercial: New commercial heliports, including those
accessory to allowed uses are allowed by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit,
subject to the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
v. New Seaplane Facilities and Heliports- Criteria for Approval:
(a) Review shall include consideration of location approval in
terms of compatibility with affected uses including short and long-term noise
impacts, impacts on habitat areas of endangered or threatened species,
environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, and migration routes:
(1) On adjacent parcels; and
(2) On over-flight areas.
(b) Conditions shall be imposed to mitigate impacts within the
shoreline and also non-shoreline overflight and related impacts.
114
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
11. Utilities:
a. Criteria for All Utilities:
i. Local utility services needed to serve water-dependent and other
permitted uses in the shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection
and visual compatibility.
ii. Major utility systems shall be located outside of shoreline
jurisdiction, to the extent feasible, except for elements that are water-
dependent and crossings of water bodies and other elements of shorelands by
linear facilities.
iii. New public or private utilities shall be located inland from the
land/water interface, preferably out of shoreline jurisdiction, unless:
(a) Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or
(b) Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cables and other facilities
on land running roughly parallel to the shoreline shall be located as far from the
water's edge as feasible and preferably outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other
facilities on aquatic lands running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may
require periodic maintenance that would disrupt shoreline ecological functions
shall be discouraged except where no other feasible alternative exists. When
permitted, provisions shall assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of
115
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
shoreline ecological functions or significant impacts to other shoreline resources
and values.
vi. Utilities shall be located in existing rights of way and corridors,
whenever reasonably feasible.
vii. Local service utilities serving new development shall be located
underground, wherever reasonably feasible.
viii. Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or
located in other existing facilities, if reasonably feasible. If new installations are
required to cross water bodies or wetlands they should avoid disturbing banks
and streambeds and shall be designed to avoid the need for shoreline
stabilization. Crossings shall be tunneled or bored where reasonably feasible-
Installations shall be deep enough to avoid failures or need for protection due to
exposure due to stream bed mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration.
Underwater utilities shall be placed in a sleeve if reasonably feasible to avoid the
need for excavation in the event the need for maintenance or replacement.
ix. In areas where utility installations would be anticipated to
significantly alter natural ground water flows, a barrier or conduit to impede
changes to natural flow characteristics shall be provided.
x. Excavated materials from construction of utilities shall be
disposed of outside of the Vegetation Conservation Buffer except if utilized for
ecological restoration and shall be specified in submittal materials.
116
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
xi. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic,
archaeological or cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible and
mitigate adverse impacts where unavoidable.
xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions with appropriate on- and
off-site mitigation including compensatory mitigation.
xiii. All utility development shall be consistent with and coordinated
with all local government and state planning, including comprehensive plans and
single purpose plans to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to
accommodate growth.
xiv. Site planning and rights of way for utility development should
provide for compatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation
or other appropriate use whenever possible. Utility right of way acquisition
should be coordinated with transportation and recreation planning.
xv. Vegetation Conservation:
(a) Native vegetation shall be maintained whenever
reasonably feasible.
(b) When utility projects are completed in the water or
shoreland, the disturbed area shall be restored as nearly as possible to the
original condition.
117
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to
withstand the travel of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such
activity occurs.
xvi. A structure or other facility enclosing a telephone exchange,
sewage pumping or other facility, an electrical substation, or other above ground
public utility built in the shoreline area shall be:
(a) Housed in a building that shall conform architecturally
with the surrounding buildings and area or with the type of building that will
develop as provided by the zoning district and applicable design standards.
(b) An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed
installation that does not conform with the standards above, shall be sight-
screened in accordance RMC 4-4-095 with evergreen trees, shrubs, and
landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual
sight barrier within five (5) years.
(c) An unhoused installation of a potentially hazardous
nature, such as an electrical distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an
eight (8)-foot-high open wire fence, or masonry wall. Such installations shall be
sight-screened in accordance RMC 4-4-095 with evergreen trees, shrubs, and
landscaping materials planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual
sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (5) years.
b. Special Considerations for Pipelines:
118
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural
conditions of adjacent water courses and shorelines.
ii. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of aquatic
life nor shall water quality standards be violated.
iii. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically
controlled shutoff valves at each side of the water crossing.
iv. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed
in accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transportation
Commission and subject to review by the City Public Works Department.
c. Major Utilities - Specifications:
i. Electrical Installations:
(a) Overhead High Voltage Power Lines:
(1) Overhead electrical transmission lines of fifty-five (55) kV
and greater voltage within the shoreline shall be relocated to a route outside of
the shoreline, where feasible when:
• Such facilities are upgraded to a higher voltage.
• Additional lines are placed within the corridor.
(2) The support structures for new overhead power lines shall
be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to shoreline areas.
(b) Underwater electrical transmission lines shall be located
and designed to:
119
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(1) Utilize existing transportation or utility corridors where
feasible.
(2) Avoid adverse impacts to navigation.
(3) Be posted with warning signs.
(c) Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution
substations shall be:
(1) Located outside of the shoreline, where feasible, and may
be located within a shoreland location only when the applicant proves no other
site out of the shoreland area exists.
(2) Located as far as feasible from the land-water interface.
(3) Screened as required by in the criteria for all utilities,
above.
ii. Communications: This section applies to telephone exchanges
including radar transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television
and/or radio, wireless communication facilities and any other facility for the
transmission of communication signals.
(a) Communications installations may be permitted in the
shoreline area only when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and
water area.
(b) All structures shall meet the screening requirements in the
criteria for all utilities, above.
120
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) If approved within the shoreline, such installations shall
reduce aesthetic impacts by locations as far as possible from residential,
recreational, and commercial activities.
(d) Cellular communication facilities may be located in the
shoreline only when mounted on buildings and screened by architectural
features compatible with the design of the building.
iii. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall be underground.
When underground projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in
the shoreland or a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original
configuration. Underground utility installations shall be permitted only when the
finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such areas.
iv. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide
pedestrian public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not
potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights of way are located near
recreational or public use areas, utility companies shall be encouraged to provide
said rights of way as parking or other public use areas for the adjacent public use
area. As a condition of location of new utilities within the shoreline, the City
may require provision of pedestrian public access.
v. All-inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than
one (1) major utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a
single utility right of way is strongly encouraged. It would be desirable to include
railroad lines within this right of way also.
121
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications:
i. Electrical Distribution: New electrical distribution lines within the
shoreline shall be placed underground, provided that distribution lines that cross
water or other critical areas may be allowed to be placed above ground if:
(a) There is no feasible alternative route.
(b) Underground installation would substantially disrupt
ecological functions and processes of water bodies and wetlands; horizontal
drilling or similar technology that does not disturb the surface is not feasible.
(c) Visual impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
(d) If overhead facilities require that native trees and other
vegetation cannot be maintained in a Vegetation Conservation buffer as
provided in subsection 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation, compensatory
mitigation shall be provided on or off-site.
ii. Waterlines:
(a) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlands or other
critical areas unless there is no reasonably feasible alternative route.
(b) Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public
Works Department in accordance with American Water Works Association
(AWWA) guidelines.
iii. Sanitary Sewer:
(a) The use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. Self-
contained outhouses may be allowed for temporary, seasonal, or special events.
122
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There
shall be no septic tanks or other on-site sewage disposal systems.
(c) Sewage trunk lines, interceptors, pump stations,
treatment plants, and other components that are not water-dependent shall be
located away from shorelines unless:
(1) Alternative locations, including alternative technology, are
demonstrated to be infeasible.
(2) The facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
(3) The facilities do not result in significant impacts to other
shoreline resources and values such as parks and recreation facilities, public
access and archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, and aesthetic
resources.
(d) Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the
sanitary sewer system.
(e) During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical
toilets may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed.
(f) All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be
approved by the Public Works Department.
iv. Stormwater Management:
(a) The City will work with private property owners, and other
jurisdictions to maintain, enhance and restore natural drainage systems to
123
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
protect water quality, reduce flooding, reduce public costs and prevent
associated environmental degradation to contribute to the goal of no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
(b) All new development shall meet current storm water
management requirements for detention and treatment.
(c) Individual single-family residences may be subject to water
quality management requirements to ensure the quality of adjacent water
bodies.
(d) Storm water ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as
far from the water's edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation
conservation buffers.
(e) The location design and construction of storm water
outfalls shall limit impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate
local, state, and federal requirements. Infiltration of storm water shall be
preferred, where reasonably feasible.
(f) Storm water management may include a low impact
development storm water conveyance system in the vegetation buffer, if the
system is designed to mimic the function and appearance of a natural shoreline
system and complies with all other requirements and standards of RMC 4-3-
090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
v. Solid Waste Facilities:
124
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(a) Facilities for processing, storage, and disposal of solid
waste are not normally water-dependent. Components that are not water-
dependent shall not be permitted on shorelines.
(b) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies
has the potential for severe adverse effects upon ecological functions, property
values, public health, natural resources, and local aesthetic values and shall not
be permitted.
(c) Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is
permitted as an accessory use to a primary permitted use, or for litter control.
F. Shoreline Modification:
1. Vegetation Conservation:
a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as
otherwise specified in this section, water bodies defined as Shorelines shall have
a minimum one hundred (lOO)-foot vegetation management buffer measured
from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline of the state. Where streams enter or
exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured perpendicular to the OHWM from the
end of the pipe alongthe open channel section of the stream.
b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The Administrator
of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may
apply the following vegetation buffers provided for in Table RMC 4-3-090F.1.I
Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach as an alternative to the Standard
125
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Vegetation Conservation Buffer for sites for development that implement water-
oriented use and public access as provided in the table for each reach.
c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing
Single-Family Lots:
i. Modified Requirements Based on Lot Depth: The Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall
apply the following vegetation buffers and building setbacks for existing single-
family residences and existing single-family lots consisting of property under
contiguous ownership without a variance. Lot depth shall be measured from the
OHWM in a perpendicular direction to the edge of the contiguously owned
parcel or to an easement containing existing physical improvements for road
access for two or more lots.
Lot Depth Building Vegetated
Setback Buffer
Greater than 45 feet 20 feet
130 feet
100 feet, up to 35 feet 15 feet
130 feet
Less than 100 25 feet 10 feet
feet
ii. Setback Modifications for Site Improvements: Existing single-
family residences on existing single-family lots subject to the setback standards
in 4-3-090F.l.c.i may reduce their setback by making one or more of the site
improvements listed below. In no case shall the setback be reduced to less than
twenty-five feet (25'). The reduced setback and site improvement shall be
recorded in a covenant approved by the City Attorney. The site improvement
126
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
shall be maintained by the property owner-
fa) The setback shall be reduced by five feet (5') for every two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of existing impervious surface removed.
(b) The setback shall be reduced for properties that agree to
reduce future impervious coverage to a standard lower than the standard in
RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards. The reductions shall be five feet
(5') for every two hundred fifty (250) square feet of future impervious surface
coverage that is limited, and recorded as a maximum impervious coverage
standard (in percent), rounded down to the nearest whole number.
(c) Properties that replace existing rigid shoreline stabilization
with preferred alternatives under RMC 4-3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization
Alternatives Hierarchy shall qualify for a setback reduction that correlates with
the degree in improvement in ecological function and value that is expected to
result from the change, as reported in a standard stream/lake study.
(d) Properties that propose projects to improve habitat
functions and values shall qualify for a setback reduction that correlates with the
degree in improvement in ecological function and value that is expected to result
from the project, as reported in a standard stream/lake study.
iii. Modifications for Narrow Lots: For such lots with a lot width of
less than sixty feet (60'), setbacks and buffers may be reduced by ten percent
(10%), but no less than:
(a) Building setback: twenty-five feet (25').
127
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) Vegetated buffer: fifteen feet (15').
iv. Other Setbacks May be Reduced: Modification from the front and
side yard standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the
established setback from the OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard
variance criteria are met in RMC 4-9-250B Variances.
d. Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width:
i. Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or Designee May Reduce: Based upon an applicant's request, the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where
the applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsections
below. Buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site
conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics.
ii. Water-dependent Uses:
(a) Areas approved for water-dependent use or public access
may be excluded from vegetated buffer if the approval is granted through review
of a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Variance,
provided that the area excluded is the minimum needed to provide for the
water-dependent use or public access.
(b) Access to private docks through a vegetated buffer may be
provided by a corridor up to six feet (6') wide.
128
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Vegetated
buffers specified for areas enumerated in Table RMC 4-3-090F.1.I, Vegetation
Conservation Standards by Reach, shall be applied in accordance with those
provisions.
iv. Buffer and Setback Reduction Standards: Based upon an
applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Standard Stream or Lake Study, the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks by up
to fifty percent (50%) if within the High Intensity Overlay or by up to twentv-five
percent (25%) in all other Shoreline Overlays except when the buffer
widths/setbacks are established by subsection 4-3-090F.1.C Alternative
Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single-Family lots, above,
where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria in the
subsections below:
(a) The proposal complies with either of the following two
criteria:
(1) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer is already
extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has
less than five percent (5%) non-native invasive species cover; or
(2) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer can be
enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species; and
129
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) The proposed project, with width reduction, will result in
no net loss of ecological functions as consistent with subsection RMC 4-3-
090D.2.a No Net Loss of Ecological Functions; and
(c) Reduction of the buffer/setback shall not create the need
for rigid shoreline stabilization as described in subsections (d) and (e) of RMC 4-
3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy; and
(d) The reduction shall not create any significant unmitigated
adverse impacts to other property in the vicinity.
(e) Review Procedures:
(1) Buffer reductions in the High Intensity Overlay shall be
approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee as part of a Substantial Development Permit. Buffer
reductions in all other Shoreline Overlays shall be processed through a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-1901 Variances and Conditional
Uses.
(2) Written findings shall be made to demonstrate that the
buffer reduction substantially implements the criteria of this section.
v. Buffer Reductions for the Conversion on Non-Conforming Uses:
Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard
buffer in a case where an existing non-conforming site is not re-developed and
130
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the proposal includes removal of existing over-water structures or removal or
reconstruction of shoreline protection structures or other restoration of
shorelines or buffer areas in a manner that meets the standards of the Shoreline
Master Program, to a vegetated buffer a minimum ten feet (10') from existing
buildings or impervious surface such as parking areas and driveways in current
use to serve the non-conforming buildings or uses.
e. Increased Buffer Widths: Vegetated buffers may be increased by the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee as required or allowed by the criteria below.
i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the stream/lake area
is in an area of high blow-down potential as determined by a qualified
professional, the buffer width may be expanded up to an additional fifty feet
(50') on the windward side, when determined appropriate to site circumstances
and ecological function by the Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High Landslide
Areas: When the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or
very high landslide hazard area or buffer, the stream/lake buffer width shall
extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the very high landslide hazard
buffer.
f. Averaging of Buffer Width:
131
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance
of a Standard Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee may approve buffer width
averaging except where specific vegetation buffers in Table RMC 4-3-090F.1.I
Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach are stated.
ii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only
where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(a) The water body and associated riparian area contains
variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in
or near the water body and associated riparian area;
(b) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of
stream/lake/riparian ecological function;
(c) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging
is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to
averaging;
(d) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less
than fifty feet (50');
(e) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of
the best available science as described in Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 365-195-905, or where there is an absence of valid scientific information.
The steps in RMC 4-9-250F shall be followed.
132
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
g. Buffer Enhancement: Buffer Enhancement as a separate action may
be proposed on any property and may be implemented without full compliance
with the standards of this section, provided that the project includes a buffer
enhancement plan using native vegetation and provides documentation that the
enhanced buffer area will maintain or improve the functional attributes of the
buffer. Any change to existing non-conforming facilities or use on a site shall
meet the provisions for non-conforming sites.
h. Exemption Criteria: As determined by the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee, for
development proposed on sites separated from the shoreline by intervening,
and lawfully created public roads, railroads, other off-site substantial existing
improvements, or an intervening parcel under separate ownership, the
requirements of this code for a vegetation buffer may be waived. For the
purposes of this section, the intervening lots/parcels, roads, or other substantial
improvements shall be found to:
i. Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to
their height or width; and
ii. Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most ecological
functions from the subject upland property to the water body.
i. Vegetation Management: Vegetation adjacent to water bodies in the
shoreline shall be managed to provide the maximum ecological functions
feasible, in accordance with these standards.
133
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Streams and lakes with Vegetation Conservation Buffer areas that
are largely undisturbed native vegetation, shall be retained except where the
buffer is to be enhanced or where alteration is allowed in conformance with this
section for a specific development proposal.
ii. In the absence of a development proposal, existing, lawfully
established landscaping and gardens within a Vegetation Conservation Buffer,
may be maintained in its existing condition including but not limited to, mowing
lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and
replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting of ornamental
vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and
appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code, provided
this does not apply to areas previously established as native growth protection
areas, mitigation sites, or other areas protected via conservation easements or
similar restrictive covenants.
iii. Removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species may be
allowed without permit review in any Vegetation Conservation Buffer area
provided that removal consists of physical uprooting or chemical treatment of
individual plants or shallow excavation of no more than one thousand (1,000)
square feet of dense infestations.
iv. New development or redevelopment of non conforming uses shall
develop and implement a vegetation management plan that complies with the
standards of this code. Unless otherwise provided, a vegetation management
134
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the specified
vegetation buffer. If a low impact development storm water system is proposed
in accordance with RMC 4-3-090E.il.d.iv(f), it must be included in the vegetation
management plan. When required, vegetation management plans shall be
prepared by a qualified professional, provided that the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may
establish prescriptive standards for vegetation conservation and management as
an alternative to requiring a specific plan for a development. Vegetation
management plans shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure
that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native
vegetation community to the extent possible. Required vegetation shall be
maintained over the life of the use and/or development. For private
development a conservation easement or similar recorded legal restriction shall
be recorded to ensure preservation of the vegetation conservation and
management area.
v. The Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee may approve, in cases of redevelopment or
alteration of existing single family residential lots, a vegetation management
plan that does not include large native trees, if such trees would block more than
thirty percent (30%) of existing water views allowed from the existing residence
on a lot. Native vegetation consisting of groundcover, shrubs and small trees
135
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
shall be provided to provide as many of the vegetation functions feasible. This
provision shall not apply to new lots created by subdivision or other means,
j. Documentation:
i. Provisions of subsection RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation
as they pertain to existing single family residences and lots determinations and
evidence shall be included in the application file.
ii. For all development requiring a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, findings and determinations regarding the application of
increased or reduced buffer width shall be included as specific findings in the
permit.
iii. For development not requiring a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, approval of a reduced buffer width shall be require review
as a shoreline variance by the Hearing Examiner per RMC 4-9-190. The setback
provisions of the zoning district for the use must also be met unless a variance to
the zoning code is achieved.
k. Off-site Vegetation Conservation Fund: The City shall provide a fund
for off-site provision of areas for Vegetation Conservation. The Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall
assess charges to new development that has been granted a shoreline variance
because the Vegetation Conservation Buffer requirement under RMC 4-3-
090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1
Vegetation Conservation, cannot be met on site. The Administrator of the
136
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall also
assess charges to existing development subject to major alteration in which on-
site shoreline stabilization mitigation, if required, is infeasible according to RMC
4-10-095F Partial and Full Compliance, Alterations of an Existing Structure or
Site. Credit shall be given for areas of vegetation buffer on the shoreline
provided by development. Expenditures from such a fund for provision of areas
where the functions of shoreline vegetation conservation would be provided
shall be in accordance with the Restoration Plan or other watershed and aquatic
habitat conservation plans and shall be spent within the WRIA in which the
assessed property is located.
137
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
I. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Standards by Reach: The following table identifies the performance
standards for maintenance and restoration of the vegetation conservation buffer and shall be applied if required by
the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE
REACH
Vegetation Conservation Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and
Reach A and B ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse
impacts shall be implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers
adjacent to the water based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating
vegetation.
Lake Washington If areas redevelop, the full one hundred (lOO)-foot buffer of native vegetation
ReachC shall be provided, except where water-dependent uses are located. Buffer
averaging, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F.l.f, may be used if consistent with a
NOAA Natural Resources Damage Settlement and approved bvthe US EPA and
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Lake Washington This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and
Reach DandE ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse
impacts shall be implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers
adjacent to the water based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating
vegetation.
Lake Washington Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
ReachF management, balanced with opportunities to provide public visual and physical
access to the shoreline. The City mav fund shoreline enhancement through fees
paid for off-site mitigation from development elsewhere on Lake Washington.
Lake Washington Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
138
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Reach G management, while recognizing that in this portion of the park is oriented
primarily to opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the
shoreline including over water structures, supporting concessions, boat launch
and public beach facilities.
Lake Washington Buffers for vegetation management are not required in this reach. This site has
Reach H an approved Master Site Plan that includes significant public access.
Opportunities for public access along the waterfront and the development of
water-oriented uses are the designated priorities for this reach.
Lake Washington The area of vegetation on public aquatic lands should be enhanced in the short
Reach 1 term. Upon redevelopment, vegetation buffers shall be extended into the site
adjacent to vegetated areas along the shoreline. Vegetation restoration shall
be balanced with public access and water-oriented use on the balance of the
site. Public access shall not impact anv restored lands on this site.
Lake Washington Enhanced riparian vegetation shall be provided in a manner consistent with
Reach J maintaining aviation safety as part of airport management.
Lake Washington Redevelopment of multi-family sites shall provide vegetation buffers at the full
Reach K standard, with possible employment of provisions for averaging or reduction.
Single-familv development in this reach provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts
shall be implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers
adjacent to the water based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating
vegetation.
May Creek
Mav Creek A and Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with development of
1 this property.
Mav Creek C and Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with
existing private lots, subject to buffer standards related to lot depth, together
with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation.
Cedar River
139
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Cedar River A Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
management, balanced with needs of flood control levees and opportunities to
provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Cedar River B Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of
flood control management programs that mav be integrated with opportunities
to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline. Vegetation
management and public access should be addressed in a comprehensive
management plan prior to issuance of shoreline permits for additional flood
management activities. This developed single-family area shall implement
vegetation management based on the standards related to lot depth together
with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation as provided for alternation of non-conforming uses,
structures, and sites.
Cedar River C Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of
management of public parks. Full standard native vegetation buffers should be
maintained on the public open space on the south side of the river, subject to
existing trail corridors and other provisions for public access. Enhancement of
native riparian vegetation within the standard or modified buffers shall be
provided upon redevelopment of the north shore, except in areas where
public/community access is provided. The vegetation conservation buffer may
be designed to incorporate floodplain management features including
floodplain compensatory storage.
Cedar River D Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with
existing private lots subject to buffer standards related to lot depth together
with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation.
Green River
Green River Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with redevelopment of
Reach A this property in this reach, balanced with provisions for public access.
Vegetation conservation within railroad rights of way shall not be required
within areas necessary for railway operation. Vegetation preservation and
140
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
enhancement should be encouraged in areas of railroad right of wav not
devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of railroad facilities may require
specific vegetation preservation and enhancement programs, consistent with
the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
Black Public open space that exceeds buffer standards should be maintained and
River/Springbrook native vegetation enhanced. Full standard buffers should be provided upon
A redevelopment of adjacent land, recognizing the constraints of existing
transportation and public facilities.
Springbrook B Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of adjacent land,
recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Springbrook C and Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district
D channels in conjunction with management plans including adjustments to
channel dimensions to assure continued flood capacity with the additional
hydraulic roughness provided bv vegetation. Full standard vegetated buffers
should be provided upon redevelopment of adjacent land presuming re-
vegetation of the stream channel. Vegetation management should retain a
continuous trail svstem that mav be relocated further from the stream edge.
Lake Desire
Lake Desire This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and
ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse
impacts should be implemented through providing for native vegetation in
buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards related to lot depth
together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation. Shoreline vegetation enhancement should take place
at the WDFW boat launching site balancing values of riparian vegetation with
public access. Existing shoreline vegetation in the publicly owned natural areas
should be preserved with some accommodation for interpretive access to the
water as a part of park management plans, subject to the primary objective of
protecting ecological functions.
141
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
2. Landfill and Excavation:
a. General Provisions: Landfill and excavation shall only be permitted in
conjunction with an approved use or development and allowed with assurance
of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Excavation below the OHWM is
considered "dredging" and is addressed in a separate section.
b. Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations Below Ordinary High
Water Mark: Landfills and excavations shall generally be prohibited below the
OHWM, except for the following activities, and in conjunction with
documentation of no net loss of ecological functions as documented in
appropriate technical studies:
i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an
approved ecological restoration activity;
ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation
facilities and utilities currently located within shoreline jurisdiction, when
alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible;
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or
public access; when alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible
and provided that filling and/or excavation are limited to the minimum needed
to accommodate the facility;
142
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
v. Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved
shoreline protection facilities, or the repair of existing shoreline protection
facilities;
vi. Approved flood control projects;
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including
vegetation restoration; and
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the
Department of Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or otherwise authorized by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the
proposed fill for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline
Master Program.
c. Review Standards: All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in
terms of all of the following standards:
i. The overall value to the public of the results of the fill or
excavation site as opposed to the value of the shoreline in its existing state as
well as evaluation of alternatives to fill that would achieve some or all of the
objectives of the proposal.
ii. Effects on ecological functions including, but not limited to
functions of the substrate of streams and lakes and affects on aquatic organisms,
including the food chain, effects on vegetation functions, effects on local
143
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
currents and erosion and deposition patterns, effects on surface and subsurface
drainage, and effects on flood waters.
iii. Whether shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect
materials placed or removed and whether such stabilization meets the policies
and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Whether the landfill or excavation will adversely alter the normal
flow of floodwater, including obstructions of flood overflow channels or swales,
after taking into account any compensating flood storage provided by the
proposal.
v. Whether public or tribal rights to the use and enjoyment of the
shoreline and its resources and amenities are impaired.
d. Performance Standards: Performance standards for fill and
excavation include:
i. Disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized and revegetated
to avoid or minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial work
and over time. Natural and self-sustaining control methods are preferred over
structures.
ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and
visually with existing topography.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: All fill and excavation
waterward of the OHWM not associated with ecological restoration, flood
144
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
control or approved shoreline stabilization shall require a Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit.
3. Dredging:
a. General: Dredging and dredge material disposal, when permitted,
shall be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological
impacts. Impacts which cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manner that
assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
b. Dredging Limited: Dredging is permitted only in cases where the
proposal, including any necessary mitigation, will result in no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions and is limited to the following:
i. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation
channels and basins where necessary to assure safe and efficient
accommodation of existing navigational uses. Maintenance dredging of
established navigation channels and basins shall be restricted to maintaining
previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width.
ii. For flood control purposes, when part of a publicly adopted flood
control plan.
iii. For restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions
benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat and approved by
applicable local, state and federal agencies.
iv. For development of approved water-dependent uses provided
there are no feasible alternatives.
145
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
v. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development
and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the
public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public
access is provided.
vi. Maintenance dredging for access to existing legally established
boat moorage slips including public and commercial moorage and moorage
accessory to single family residences, provided that dredging shall be limited to
maintaining the previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth,
and width. Dredging shall be disallowed to maintain depths of existing private
moorage where it results in a net loss of ecological functions.
vii. Minor trenching to allow the installation of necessary
underground pipes or cables if no alternative, including boring, is feasible, and:
(a) Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are avoided to the
maximum extent possible.
(b) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the
natural rate, extent, or opportunity of channel migration.
(c) Appropriate best management practices are employed to
prevent water quality impacts or other environmental degradation.
viii. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan
approved under authority of the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or pursuant
to other authorization by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of
146
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction, after review of the proposed
materials for compliance with the policies and standards of the Shoreline Master
Program.
ix. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution
and water quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or
recreational areas.
c. Dredging Prohibited: Dredging shall be prohibited in the following
cases:
i. Dredging shall not be performed within the deltas of the Cedar
River and May Creek except for purposes of ecological restoration, for public
flood control projects, for water-dependent public facilities, or for limited
maintenance dredging in conformance with this section.
ii. Dredging is prohibited solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or
construction material. Dredging which is not directly related to those purposes
permitted in subsection b, above, is prohibited.
iii. Dredging for new moorage is prohibited.
iv. Dredging may not be performed to maintain facilities established
for water-dependent uses in cases where the primary use is discontinued unless
the facility meets ail standards for a new water-dependent use.
v. Dredging of public aquatic lands is prohibited unless approval is
granted from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
d. Review Criteria:
147
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. New development, including the development of associate piers
and docks, should be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to
minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. Where alternatives such
as the utilization of shallow access to mooring buoys is feasible, such measures
.shall be used.
ii. All proposed dredging operations shall be designed by an
appropriate State licensed professional engineer. A stamped engineering report
and an assessment of potential impacts on ecological functions shall be prepared
by qualified consultants and shall be submitted to the Renton Planning Division
as part of the application for a shoreline permit.
iii. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate
the necessity of the proposed dredging operation.
iv. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate
that:
(a) There will be no net loss of ecological functions including
but not limited to adverse effect on aquatic species including fish migration.
(b) There will be no adverse impact on recreational areas or
public recreation enjoyment of the water.
v. Adjacent bank protection:
(a) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the
banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests
with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks.
148
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks
for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to
propose and carry out a method of restoration of the disturbed area to a
condition minimizing erosion and siltation.
vi. Avoidance of Adverse Effects: The responsibility rests with the
applicant to demonstrate the proposed dredging will avoid conditions that may
adversely affect adjacent properties including:
(a) Creating a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
(b) Damaging property in or near the area.
(c) Causing substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic
or human life in or near the area.
(d) Endangering public safety in or near the area.
vii. The applicant shall demonstrate control of contamination and
pollution to water, air, and ground through specific operation and mitigation
plans.
viii. Disposal of Dredge Material: The applicant shall demonstrate that
the disposal of dredged material will not result in net loss of ecological functions
or adverse impacts to properties adjacent to the disposal site.
(a) The applicant shall provide plans for the location and
method of disposing of all dredged material.
(b) Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake, stream,
or marine water except if approved as habitat enhancement or other beneficial
149
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
environmental mitigation as part of ecological restoration, a contamination
remediation project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies, or
is approved in accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
evaluation procedures for managing in-water-disposal of dredged material by
applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water
Act) permits, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic
Project Approval.
(c) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a
shoreland area that would result in the clearing of native vegetation. Temporary
stockpiling of dredged material is limited to one hundred eighty (180) days.
(d) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in
nature, the applicant shall propose and carry out a method of disposal that
complies will all regulatory requirements.
(e) Permanent land disposal shall demonstrate that:
(1) Shoreline ecological functions will be preserved, including
protection of surface and ground water.
(2) Erosion, sedimentation, floodwaters or runoff will not
increase adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions or property.
(3) Sites will be adequately screened from view of local
residents or passersby on public right-of-ways.
(4) The site is not located within a Channel Migration Zone.
150
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: Dredging shall require a
Shoreline Conditional Use unless associated with existing water-dependent uses,
habitat enhancement, a remedial action plan approved under the authority of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or the Model Toxics Control Act, or public recreation facilities or uses.
4. Shoreline Stabilization:
a. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization
Structures:
i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline
stabilization should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New
development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure
that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the
structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.
ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for
shoreline stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to
approve new water-dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent
uses that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts
to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be
allowed.
iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline
stabilization measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, non-
structural methods such as vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and
151
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
bioengineering have been determined infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline
stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of preference:
(a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally),
increase building setbacks, and relocate structures.
(b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials
including measures such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including
beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization.
(c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid
works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer
line.
(d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and
flexibly defense works, as described above.
(e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as
riprap or concrete-
ly. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural
stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is
demonstrated in one of the following situations:
(a) To protect existing primary structures:
(1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization
measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, should not be
allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical
analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by
152
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
currents, or waves within three (3) years, or where waiting until the need is
immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts
on ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline
erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration
of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and
address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering
structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause of shoreline
instability at the site in question.
(2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii above.
(3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net
loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel
migration zone (CMZ) require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington
licensed geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license
plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments. Erosion control
measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the erosion rate exceeds
that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the measure does not
interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting
in natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of
impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream.
153
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) New Development: In support of new development when
all five (5) of the conditions listed below apply and are documented by a
geotechnical analysis:
(1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such
as the loss of vegetation and drainage.
(2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development
further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage
improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
(3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due
to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be
caused by natural processes, such as currents, and waves.
(4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the
hierarchy in subsection a.iii, above.
(5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any
compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by
regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(6) The proposed new development is not located in a
channel migration zone (CMZ).
(c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects
for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation
154
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
projects pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW when all three (3) of the conditions
below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis:
(1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any
compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by
regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the
hierarchy in subsection a.iii, above.
(d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a
designated harbor area when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner
by a geotechnical report:
(1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing
on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
(2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any
compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by
regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the
hierarchy in subsection a.iii above.
v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant
to this section that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary
structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating
155
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the
specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the need and
effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential
damage to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit
requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction.
vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline
stabilization on streams should assure that such structures do not unduly
interfere with natural stream processes. The Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee shall review the proposed
design for consistency with state guidelines for stream bank protection as it
relates to local physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the
Shoreline Master Program, subject to the following:
(a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both
upstream and downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character
and hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches
upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity of the stream corridor
is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and that the
revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or valuable
shoreline resources.
(b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on
point and channel bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the
purpose offish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration.
156
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed
landward of associated wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement
waterward of such features would not adversely affect ecological functions.
(d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on
the inside bend of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works,
railways and existing structures.
(e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW
stream bank protection guidelines.
(f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be
authorized only by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures
installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris
installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both
upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-water
structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological
functions that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss.
b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization
Structures: When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are
demonstrated to be necessary, the following design criteria shall apply:
i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures
shall be designed by a qualified professional. Certification by the design
professional may be required to ensure that installation meets ail design
parameters.
157
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ii. General Requirements: The size of stabilization measures shall be
limited to the minimum necessary. Use measures shall be designed to assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless
demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and
businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions.
iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Publicly financed or
subsidized shoreline erosion control measures shall be ensured to not restrict
appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is
determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or
harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4).
Where feasible, ecological restoration and public access improvements shall be
incorporated into the project.
iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should
not be permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public
shorelines, nor with other appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited
to, navigation, public or private recreation and Indian treaty rights.
v. Aesthetic Qualities to be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline
stabilization measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline.
vi. Public Access to be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or
public access should be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance
of shoreline stabilization structures for public or quasi-public developments
158
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
whenever safely compatible with the primary purpose. Shore stabilization on
publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to decrease long term public
use of the shoreline.
c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline
stabilization structures not in compliance with this code may be retained,
repaired, or replaced if they meet the applicable criteria below:
i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization
structure may be repaired as long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization
function for a legally established land use, but shall be subject to the provisions
below if the land use for which the shoreline stabilization structure was
constructed is abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-conforming Uses, or changed
to a new use.
ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size
of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure
established to serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-
conforming Uses, discontinued, or changed to a new use may be retained or
replaced with a similar structure if:
(a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a
geotechnical analysis to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused
by currents or waves; and
159
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization
structure in relation to the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives
established in subsection a.iii, above, shows that a more preferred level of
shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing shoreline
stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives 1-3 of the
hierarchy in subsection a.iii would be infeasible then the existing shoreline
stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a similar structure.
iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting
Residences: Replacement walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach
waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the
residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety
or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut
the existing shoreline stabilization structure.
v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft
shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological
functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
Replenishment of substrate materials to maintain the specifications of the
permitted design may be allowed as maintenance.
vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated
with critical habitats would occur by leaving an existing structure that is being
replaced, the structure shall be removed as part of the replacement measure.
5. Flood Control:
160
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a. Permitted Flood Control Projects: Flood control works shall be
permitted when it is demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluations
that:
i. They are necessary to protect health, safety and/or existing
development;
ii. Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible;
and
iii. Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood
hazard management plan that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed
system.
b. Prohibited Flood Control Projects: New or expanding development or
uses in the shoreline, including subdivision of land, that would likely require new
structural flood control works within a stream, channel migration zone, or
floodway shall not be allowed.
c. Long Term Compatibility: New or expanded flood control works and
in stream structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with
appropriate multiple uses of stream resources over the long term, especially in
shorelines of statewide significance.
d. Criteria for Allowing Flood Control Projects: New flood control works
should only be allowed in the shoreline if they are necessary to protect existing
development and where non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are
infeasible.
161
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
e. Native Vegetation: Flood control works should incorporate native
vegetation to the extent feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more
natural appearance, improve ecological functions, and provide more flexibility
for long term shoreline management.
f. Consideration of Alternatives: To minimize flood damages and to
maintain natural resources associated with streams, overflow corridors and
other alternatives to traditional bank levees, revetments and/or dams shall be
considered. Setback levees and similar measures should be employed where
they will result in lower flood peaks and velocities, and more effective
conservation of resources than with high bank levees. On Cedar River Reach D,
setting back existing levees to provide for enhanced natural stream processes
may be pursued when adequate provisions are made for protecting existing
public and private uses.
g. Public Access Required: Flood control works shall provide access to
public shorelines whenever possible, unless it is demonstrated that public access
would cause unavoidable public health and safety hazards, security problems,
unmitigatable ecological impacts, unavoidable conflicts with proposed uses, or
unreasonable cost. At a minimum, flood control works should not decrease
public access or use potential of shorelines.
6. Stream Alteration:
a. Definition of Stream Alteration: Stream alteration is the relocation or
change in the flow of a river, stream or creek.
162
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. Alterations to be Minimized: Stream alteration shall be minimized,
and when allowed should change natural stream processes as little as possible.
c. Allowed if No Feasible Alternative: Unless otherwise prohibited by-
subsections RMC 4-3-090E.10 Transportation and RMC 4-3-090E.il Utilities,
stream alteration may be allowed for transportation and utility crossings and in-
stream structures only where there is no feasible alternative.
d. Allowed for Flood Hazard Reduction: Stream alteration may be
permitted if it is part of a public flood hazard reduction program or a habitat
enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.
e. Prohibited Alterations: Stream alteration solely for the purpose of
enlarging the developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic
potential of a parcel of land is prohibited.
f. Detriment to Adjacent Parcels Prohibited: Stream alteration is
prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels.
g. Applicant's Responsibility: The applicant has the sole responsibility to
demonstrate the necessity of the proposal and compliance with the criteria of
the Shoreline Master Program.
h. Professional Design Required: All proposed stream alterations shall
be designed by an appropriately state-licensed professional engineer. The
design shall be submitted with a supplemental lake/stream study to the Planning
Division as part of the application.
163
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
i. Impacts to Aquatic Life to be Minimized: The design timing and the
methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life Including
minimizing erosion, sedimentation and other pollution during and after
construction.
j. Flow Levels to Be Maintained: The project must be designed so that
the low flow is maintained and fish escapement is provided for-
te. Conditional Use Required in a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ):
Stream alterations within a channel migration zone require a shoreline
conditional use permit.
SECTION II. Subsection 4-8-120C, Table 4-8-120C - Land Use Permit Submittal
Requirements, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", is hereby amended so the submittal requirement rows entitled "Landscape Plan,
conceptual", "Site Plan", "Statement for Addressing Basis for Alternate and/or Modification",
"Stream/Lake Study (8)", "Title Report or Plat Certificate" and "Wetland Mitigation Plan-Final"
for only the "Shoreline Exemption", "Shoreline Substantial Development Permit", "Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit" and "Shoreline Variance" type of application/permit columns are
hereby amended as shown below. A new submittal requirement row entitled "Vegetation
Management Plan (Shoreline)" shall be added in alphabetical order, as shown below. Note 8 of
the Legend shall also be amended, as shown below. All other portions of this subsection shall
remain as currently codified.
Submittal Requirements Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline
Exemption Substantial Conditional Use Variance
164
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Development
Permit
Permit
Landscape Plan,
conceptual
5 5 5
Site Plan 12 12 12
Statement for Addressing
Basis for Alternate
and/or Modification
5 5 5
Stream/Lake Study (8) 424 12 12 12
Title Report or Plat
Certificate
5 5 5
Vegetation Management
PianiShoreline)
5 5
Wetland Mitigation Plan-
Final
3 3 3 3
Table 4-8-120C Legend
8. A standard stream or lake study is required for any application proposal.
A supplemental stream or lake study is also required if an unclassified stream is
involved, or if there are proposed alterations of the water body or buffer, as
identified in the standard stream or lake study. If substantial impacts to the
existing vegetation within the buffer required by RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline
Bulk Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation
are identified in the standard stream or lake study, a supplemental stream or
lake study may be required by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee. A stream or lake
mitigation plan will be required prior to final approval for any plans or permits
that result in mitigation identified in the supplemental stream or lake study.
SECTION 111: The definition for "Elevations, Architectural" in subsection 4-8-120D.5,
Definitions E, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
165
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", is hereby amended to add a new subsection i, to read as follows:
i. Required for shoreline permits:
i. Include measurements of the existing and proposed elevations of
the stream, river, or lake bottom in relationship to the proposed structure, if the
proposed structure is located fully or partially in, or over, the water.
ii. Projects exceeding 35 ft. in height must demonstrate compliance
with the height requirement in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a.
SECTION IV: The definition for "Geotechnical Report" in subsection 4-8-120D.7,
Definitions G, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
Geotechnical Report: A study prepared in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical practices and stamped by a professional engineer licensed
in the State of Washington which includes soils and slope stability analysis,
boring and test pit logs, and recommendations on slope setbacks, foundation
design, retaining wall design, material selection, and all other pertinent
elements. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the
report shall be reviewed and approved by a geologist. Further
recommendations, additions or exceptions to the original report based on the
plans, site conditions, or other supporting data shall be signed and sealed by the
geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews the plans and
166
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report,
the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and
specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the
recommendations in the geotechnical report and state that the plans and
specifications conform to his or her recommendations. If the site contains a
geologic hazard regulated by the critical areas regulations, the preparation and
content requirements of RMC 4-8-120D, Table 18 shall also apply. If the site is
within a channel migration zone, within shoreline jurisdiction, the geotechnical
report shall also include a geomorphic assessment by a Washington State
licensed geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license
plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments.
Table 18- Geotechnical Report- Detailed Requirements
REPORT PREPARATION/CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS
ST
E
E
P S
L
O
P
E
S
LA
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
-
M
E
D
I
U
M
LA
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
-
H
I
G
H
LA
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
-
V
E
R
Y H
I
G
t
HI
G
H E
R
O
S
I
O
N
SE
I
S
M
I
C
CO
A
L M
I
N
E
-
M
E
D
I
U
M
CO
A
L
M
I
N
E
-
H
I
G
H
VO
L
C
A
N
I
C H
A
Z
A
R
D
S
SH
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
1. Characterize soils, geology X X X X X X X X X X
and drainage.
2. Describe and depict all natural X X X X X X X X X X
and man-made features within one
hundred fifty feet (150') of the site
boundary.
3. Identify any areas that have X X X X X X X X X X
previously been disturbed or
degraded by human activity or
natural processes.
4. Characterize ground water X X X X X X X X X
167
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
conditions including the presence
of any public or private wells within
one-quarter (1/4) mile of the site.
5. Provide a site evaluation
review of available information
regarding the site.
X X X X X X X X X X
6. Conduct a surface
reconnaissance of the site and
adjacent areas.
X X X X X X X X X
7. Conduct a subsurface
exploration of soils and hydrologic
conditions.
X X X X X X X X X
8. Provide a slope stability
analysis.
X X X X X X X
9. Address principles of erosion
control in proposal design
including:
• Plan the development to fit
the topography, drainage patterns,
soils and natural vegetation on site;
• Minimize the extent of the
area exposed at one time and the
duration of the exposure;
• Stabilize and protect
disturbed areas as soon as possible;
• Keep runoff velocities low;
• Protect disturbed areas from
stormwater runoff;
• Retain the sediment within
the site area;
• Design a thorough
maintenance and follow-up
inspection program to ensure
erosion control practices are
effective.
X X X X X X X X
10. Provide an evaluation of site
response and liquefaction potential
relative to the proposed
development.
X
11. Conduct sufficient subsurface
exploration to provide a site
coefficient (S) for use in the
International Building Code to the
X
168
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
satisfaction of the guilding Off icial
Administrator of the Department o
Community and Economic
Development or designee.
12. Calculate tilts and strains, and
determine appropriate design
values for the building site.
X X
13. Review available geologic
hazard maps, mine maps, mine
hazard maps, and air photographs
to identify any subsidence features
or mine hazards including, but not
limited to, surface depressions,
sinkholes, mine shafts, mine
entries, coal mine waste dumps,
and any indication of combustion in
underground workings or coal mine
waste dumps that are present on
or within one hundred feet (100')
of the property.
X X
14. Inspect, review and document
any possible mine openings and
potential trough subsidence, and
any known hazards previously
documented or identified.
X X
15. Utilize test pits to investigate
coal mine waste dumps and other
shallow hazards such as slope entry
portals and shaft collar areas.
Drilling is required for coal mine
workings or other hazards that
cannot be adequately investigated
by surface investigations.
X X
16. Provide an analysis of
proposed clearing, grading and
construction activities including
construction scheduling. Analyze
potential direct and indirect on-site
and off-site impacts from
development.
X X X X X X X X X
17. Propose mitigation measures,
such as any special construction
techniques, monitoring or
X X X X X X X X X X
169
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
inspection programs, erosion or
sedimentation programs during
and after construction, surface
water management controls,
buffers, remediation, stabilization,
etc.
18. Critical facilities on sites
containing areas susceptible to
inundation due to volcanic hazards
shall require an evacuation and
emergency management plan. The
applicant for critical facilities shall
evaluate the risk of inundation or
flooding resulting from mudflows
originating on Mount Rainier in a
geotechnical report, and identify
any engineering or other mitigation
measures as appropriate.
X
19. Address factors specific to the X
site, or to the proposed shoreline
modification, as required in RMC 4-
3-090 Shoreline Master Program
Regulations
X
Note: An "X" indicates that the requirement applies in the identified critical area.
SECTION V. Subsection e of the definition for "Landscaping Plan, Conceptual" in
subsection 4-8-120D.12, Definitions L, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
e. Location, size, and purpose of planting areas, including those required in
RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping, and those required in RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline
Master Program Regulations,
SECTION VI: The definition for "Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan" in subsection 4-8-
120D.19, Definitions S, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
170
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure
compensation for unavoidable significant adverse impacts that result from the
chosen development alternative or from a violation as identified in the impact
evaluation. A mitigation plan must include:
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch
equals twenty feet (1" = 20') (unless otherwise approved by the development
Services Director Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee):
i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one
hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies)
flow(s);
ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by
a qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050Llb (the OHWM must also be
flagged in the field);
iii. Stream or lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton
Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090 or as determined through-a
supplemental—stream—or-—lake—study—approved—by—the—Administrator (if
unclassified, see "Supplemental Stream or Lake Study");
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the
stream(s) and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes
171
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
are less than ten percent (10%), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten
percent (10%) or greater;
v. One hundred (100) year floodplain and floodway boundaries,
including one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the
water body(ies) flow(s);
vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of
major drainage flow;
vii. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake
bed, banks, and buffers to scale;
viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or
lake, banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one
hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line, include
position, species, and size of all trees at least ten inches (10") average diameter
that are within one hundred feet (100') of the OHWM;
ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed
structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and
installations in relation to the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s);-a-n4
x. Location of site access, ingress and egress; and
xi. Indication Location of where ajj proposed mitigation or
remediation measures will take have taken place on the site-;, or are proposed to
take place.
172
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
xi^-Sepafate4n4ication r^-afeas-wber-e revegetation is to-tak-e-pfaee
and- -where vegetation is anticipated-to-bo removedf an4
xiii. Any other areas of impact-with clear indication of type-and extent
of impaet-indicated on site-pteR-r
b. Mitigation narrative: Mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper that
includes the following elements:
i. Description of ex4stlftg--een4tttefis on the site-aftd-asseeiafced-water-
ms<>rtfce- ^^setine-4nfor m a t i o R4 Description of the mitigation plan, which
includes a summary of mitigation proposal required in the supplemental stream
or lake study;
ii. Reseu-r-ee(s) and functional values to be restored, created;—er-
enhanced-en the mitigation site(s) Performance standards with specific criteria
provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project
are achieved; and
iii. 0o€4tfftentatfen of coordination witb-api»fop*iate localy^egienajy
special—district,—state-;—and—federal—regulatory—agencies Documentation of
coordination with appropriate local, regional, special district, state, and federal
regulatory agencies.
ivr- Construction schedule;
V;—Operations—and—maintenance—practices—fof—protection—and
maintenance ef the site;
173
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
ochiovod43y-fVHttga4rir>H7
vii^ Monitoring-—and—evaluation—p^ee-dores,—including—minimum
menito4ftg-staft4ar-d-s and timelines (i.e., annual-semi-annual, quarterly^
viii. Contingency—plan—with—r-emedial—actions—for-—unsuccessful
mitigation^
k. Cost estimates fo^fft^effientatien of mitieatior^-platvfor-pw^ses
of-calculating surety devieej
—Discussion of compIia-eee witn-efiteria-er conditioes-allowittg-fof
the propose4^troam/lai4e-a4tef-atiofKjr buffef-FC duct ion or buffer avefagingT-ane
a discussiofnef-conformity-te-applicable mitigation plan approval criteria; and
xiv—A-r-evicw of th-e best available scioncc suppofting-4l^e--pfoposed
fequest for a red-uced-sta-ndafd—ane/^^ method ef impact mitigatioftT—a
description of the report-author's experience-te-dato in restoring or cratmg-tfoe
typo of criticai-area-p-reposed; and-an analysis of the41l4e4ibeo4-e4-SrjccGss of the
compensation project
c Monitoring and Maintenance Plan: The plan shall be on 8.5" x 11"
paper that includes the following elements:
i. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and
maintenance of the site;
ii. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum
monitoring standards and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly);
174
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful
mitigation.
d. A surety device that must be filed with the City of Renton.
SECTION Vif. Subsections a, Site Map, a.iii, and c, Stream or Lake Assessment
Narrative, of the definition for "Stream or Lake Study, Standard" in subsection 4-8-120D.19,
Definitions S, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", are hereby amended as shown below. All other subsections of the definition
shall remain as currently codified.
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch
equals twenty feet (l'=20') (unless otherwise approved by the development
Services Director- Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee):
iii. Stream or lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water
Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q.4 or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see "Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study" below);
c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report on 8.5" x
11" paper shall be prepared to accompany the site plan whieb and describes:
i. The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton
Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q.4 or RMC 4-3-090;
ii. The vegetative cover of the site, including the stream or lake,
banks, riparian area, wetland areas, and flood hazard areas extending one
175
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line, including
the impacts of the proposal on the identified vegetation;
iii. The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake
and existing riparian area and the impacts of the proposal on the identified
ecological functions;
iv. Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area
including, but not limited to, salmonids, mammals, and bird nesting, breeding,
and feeding/foraging areas, including the impacts of the proposal on the
identified fish and wild life;
v. Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11-200, and
vegetation^ and
vi. For shorelines regulated under RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master
Program, the study shall demonstrate if the proposal meets the criteria of no net
loss of ecological functions as described in RMC 4-3-090D.2. if the proposal
requires mitigation for substantial impacts to the existing vegetation buffer in
order to demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions, a supplemental stream
or lake study may be required by the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee.
SECTION VIII. The definition of "Steam or Lake Study, Supplemental", in subsection 4-8-
120D.19, Definitions S, of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
176
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental: The application shall include the following
information:
a. Unclassified Stream Assessment: If the site contains an unclassified
stream, a qualified biologist shall provide a proposed classification of the
stream(s) based on RMC 4-3 050L.1 and a rationale for the proposed rating.
b. Alterations to StreamT^ake-and/^j^^e^4^ Analysis of Alternatives:
A supplemental report on 8.5" x 11" paper prepared by a qualified biologist shall
evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using-the following
c-riter-ia-fer justification. The following alternatives shall be analyzed, including
justification of the feasibility of each alternative:
i. Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake, or buffer by not taking
a certain action, by not taking parts of an action, or by moving the action;
ii. Minimize any stream, lake, or buffer impacts by limiting the
degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate
technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce the
impacts;
iii. Compensate for any stream, laf»e-6f49^^f4er-impactsi-Rectifying the
impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected area;
iv. Restore—any stream^—lake—or buffer ar-ea—impacted—er lost
tempofaffly—Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations over the life of the action;
177
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
v. fetwBce-degfa^^
ftmetjens-and values Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts by
replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments
and monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures,
c. Impact Evaluation:
i. An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a
qualified biologist, to include:
(a) Identification, by characteristics and quantity, of resources
(stream, lake) and corresponding functional values found on the site;
(b) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modifications,
or alternative methods of development to determine which options(s) reduce(s)
the impacts on the identified resource(s) and function values of the site;
(c) Determination of the alternative that best meets the
applicable approval criteria and identify significant detrimental impacts that are
unavoidable;
(d) To the extent that the site resources and functional values
are part of a larger natural system such as a watershed, the evaluation must also
consider the cumulative impacts on that system;
(e) For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, evaluation of
how the preferred alternative achieves the standard of no net loss of ecological
functions under RMC 4-3-090D2.
ii. For a violation, the impact evaluations must also include:
178
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
(a) Description, by characteristics and quantity, of the
resource(s) and functional values on the site prior to the violations; and
(b) Determination of the impact of the violation on the
resource(s) and functional values.
d. Mitigation Proposal shall include the following:
i. A Site Plan, at a scale approved by the City, containing all the
elements of the site plan required in the standard stream and lake study, and the
following:
(a) Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation
measures will take place on the site;
(b) Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take
place and areas where vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and
(c) Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and
extent of impact indicated on site plan.
ii. A mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper addressing all of the
following:
(a) Resource(s) and functional values to be restored, created,
or enhanced on the mitigation site(s);
(b) Environmental goals, objectives, and performance
standards to be achieved by mitigation;
(c) Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions
allowing for the proposed stream/lake alteration or buffer reduction or buffer
179
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
averaging, and a discussion of conformity to applicable mitigation plan approval
criteria;
(d) A review of the best available science supporting the
proposed request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact
mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or
creating the type of critical area proposed; and an analysis of the likelihood of
success of the compensation project; and
(e) Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for
purposes of calculating surety device.
iii. For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, a discussion of how the
proposed plans meet or exceed the standard of no net loss of ecological
functions under RMC 4-3-090D.2;
iv. The proposed construction schedule.
SECTION IX. Subsection 4-8-120D.22 Definitions V, of Chapter 8, Permits - General
and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a new
definition for "Vegetation Management Plan", to read as follows:
Vegetation Management Plan: A plan prepared by a qualified professional
that details how to preserve, maintain, enhance, or establish native vegetation
within a Vegetation Conservation Buffer required by the Shoreline Master
Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090. The plan shall describe actions that will be
implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent
180
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
to a dense native vegetation community to the greatest extent possible. It shall
also specify what is necessary to maintain the required vegetation over the life
of the use and/or development, consistent with the provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F.l.i, Vegetation Management.
SECTION X. Section 4-9-190, Shoreline Permits, of Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances
of the City of Renton, Washington", is herby amended as follows:
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS:
A. PURPOSE: (RESERVED)
The purpose of this section is to ensure consistency with the State Shoreline
Management Act and with the City's Shoreline Master Program.
B. mmMA&iUm4KmEmEmSHOREUNE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL:
1. Development Compliance: All uses and developments within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (hereinafter the "Act") shall be
planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Shoreline Master
Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of
whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or
shoreline conditional use permit is required. The Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall assure
compliance with the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program for all permits
and approvals processed by the City.
181
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
2. Shoreline Overlay: Shoreline regulations shall apply as an overlay and in
addition to Development Regulations, including but not limited to zoning,
environmental regulations, development standards, subdivision regulations, and
other regulations established by the City.
a. Allowed uses shall be limited by the general polices and specific
regulations regarding use preferences for water-dependent and water-oriented
uses. Allowed uses may be specified and limited in specific shoreline permits. In
the case of non-conforming development, the use provisions of this code shall
be applied to any change of use, including occupancy permits.
b. In the event of any conflict between Shoreline policies and
regulations and any other regulations of the City, Shoreline policies and
regulations shall prevail unless other regulations provide greater protection of
the shoreline natural environment and aquatic habitat
c. All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally
construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have
been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies, found in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to
RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code, sections
173-26 and 173-27.
3. Substantia! Development Permit: A substantial development permit shall
be required for all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the
proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). An exemption
182
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
from obtaining a shoreline substantial development permit is not an exemption
from compliance with the Act, the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other
regulatory requirements.
a. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments
that meet the precise terms of one (1) or more of the listed exemptions may be
granted exemptions from the substantial development permit process.
b. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt is on the
applicant/proponent of the exempt development action.
c. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption,
then a substantial development permit is required for the entire project.
4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: A development or use that is listed as
a shoreline conditional use pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program or is an
unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even if the development or
use does not require a substantial development permit.
5. Shoreline Variance: When an activity or development is proposed that
does not comply with the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of
the Program, such development or use shall only be authorized by approval of a
shoreline variance even if the development or use does not require a substantial
development permit.
6. Land Division: In the case of land divisions, such as short subdivisions,
long plats and planned unit developments, the Administrator of the Department
of Community and Economic Development or designee shall document
183
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
compliance with bulk and dimensional standards as well as poiicies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program and attach appropriate conditions
and/or mitigating measures to such approvals to ensure the design,
development activities and future use associated with such land division(s) are
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
7. Approval Criteria: In order to be approved, the Administrator of the
Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find
that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the
shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be
met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by
approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the
shoreline area designation and the type of use or development activity proposed
shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable
proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided
it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with
the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW
90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance, and relevant policies
and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall be also be adhered to.
184
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
8. Written Findings Required: All permits or statements of exemption
issued for development or use within shoreline jurisdiction shall include written
findings prepared by the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee, including compliance with bulk and
dimensional standards and policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master
Program. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee may attach conditions to the approval of exempt
developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with
the Act and the Program.
9. Building Permit Compliance: For all development within shoreline
jurisdiction, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee shall not issue a building permit for such development
until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a
shoreline substantial development permit is required, no permit shall be issued
until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any permit issued by the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee for such development shall be subject to the same terms and
conditions that apply to the shoreline permit.
10. Restoration Project Relief: The City may grant relief from Shoreline
Master Program development standards and use regulations when the following
aPPlv:
185
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a. A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward
shift in the OHWM, resulting in the following:
i. Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to
construction of the restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
ii. Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift
in required shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline
Master Program; and
iii. Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would
preclude or interfere with use of the property permitted by local development
regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
b. The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria:
i. The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the
hardship;
ii. After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental
benefit from the restoration project;
iii. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of
the shoreline restoration project and consistent with the Shoreline Master
Program; and
iv. Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to
obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the
mitigation is not eligible for relief under this section.
186
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
c. The application for relief must be submitted to the Department of
Ecology for written approval or disapproval. This review must occur during the
department's normal review of a shoreline substantial development permit,
conditional use permit, or variance. If no such permit is required, then the
department shall conduct its review when the local government provides a copy
of a complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct
the review.
i. Except as otherwise provided in subsection d of this section, the
Department of Ecology shall provide at least twenty (20) days notice to parties
that have indicated interest to the department in reviewing applications for
relief under this section, and post the notice on to their web site.
ii. The department shall act within thirty (30) calendar days of close
of the public notice period, or within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposal
from the local government if additional public notice is not required.
d. The public notice requirements of subsection c of this section do not
apply if the relevant shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline
Master Program or shoreline restoration plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as
follows:
i. The restoration plan has been approved by the department under
applicable Shoreline Master Program guidelines; and
ii. The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the
Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline
187
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
reach identified in the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan as
appropriate for granting relief from shoreline regulations; and
iii. The Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes
policies addressing the nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be
applied.
C. EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM:
The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the
purpose of this Master Program and are exempt from obtaining a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). An exemption from an SSDP is not an
exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or
from any other regulatory requirements.
1. Governor's Certification: Any project with a certification from the
Governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
2. Projects Valued at $5,000 or less: Any development of which the total
cost or fair market value does not exceed two-thousand five hundred-five
thousand dollars ($2,500.QQ~$5,000), if such development does not materially
interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state.
3. Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing
structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements.
a. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline,
lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition.
188
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state
comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape,
configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period
after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment.
c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as
repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of
structure or development and the replacement structure or development is
comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited
to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the
replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or
environment.
4r—Construction of the nor-mal protective bulkhoad cofw^n4e-sif^le4catnily
residcnccs-r
A "normal protective" bulkhead inelodes-those structural and-^^OBStfuetwal
4eveleofflen^4nstalled at or neafy-and parallel to, the ordinary high water maffc
for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single family—residence and
aoowtenant structures from loss 041-daffiage4>/-efesien. A normal protective
Oritid^readls-Ro^exempt if-it4s-constf^cted-for-the pur-pese-ef-cfeating additional
dry-land.—Additiooal-eenstructieR—reeu^ s are—fowid in WAC 17-3-3-7-
4340(24(e7r
189
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
S.4. Emergency Construction: Emergency construction necessary to protect
property from damage by the elements.
a. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public
health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a
time too short to allow for full compliance with this program the Shoreline
Master Program.
b. Emergency construction does not include development of new
permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new
protective structures are deemed to be the appropriate means to address the
emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation, the new
structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required,
absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 17-27 WAC or
this the Shoreline Master Program shall be obtained.
c. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of
chapter 90.58 RCW and this program the Shoreline Master Program.
d. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated
and may occur, but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
6T5. Agricultural Construction or Practices: Construction and practices
normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including
agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and
maintenance of irrigation structures, including, but not limited to, head gates,
pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing
190
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the
shorelands by leveling or filling, other than that which results from normal
cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching
activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used
for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not
include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing,
nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations.
-A-6. Construction of Single-Family Residence and Accessory Buildings:
Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single
family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence
does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet (35') above average grade level as
defined in WAC 173-27-030 and which meets all requirements of the State
agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements
imposed pursuant to this Section.
a. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and
occupied by one (1) family including those structures and developments within a
contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is
necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and
is located landward of the ordinary high water mark OHWM and the perimeter
of a wetland.
b. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located
landward of the €H^4mafy-high water mark OHWM.
191
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
&T7. Construction of Non-Commercial Docks: Construction of a dock
including a community dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the private
noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and
multi-family residences.
a. T4^is-e^cept4en-apof!es if either
h—-In saIt-water-s-rthe fair maiket-value of the dock-dc^s-net-exceed
PNG-^heusan44w^-hun4fe4 dollars ($2-r5O0rQQTT
fh—lfHftesl:Hwetef-5T4fK; fair mar-ket-vafue of the deek-does-net-exeeed
tefHthe^^saftd-dellars ($10,000.00); he^weveivif-a subsequent constwction having
a affair market value exceeding-two thousand five-4wn4red dollar-s- ($2,500TOQ)
eectirs within five (5) years of completion of th-e—prior cen-stf-uction, the
54jla£e€rr>ef#-eefrStf^ substantia! development per-mitr
This exception applies if the fair market value of the dock does not
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000); however, if subsequent construction
having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)
occurs within five (5) years of completion of the prior construction, the
subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development permit;
and
b. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not
include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances.
9T8. Construction Authorized by the Coast Guard: Construction or
modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port
192
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor
buoys.
!Qr9. Operation, Maintenance, or Construction Related to Irrigation:
Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains,
reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or
developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use
of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for
the irrigation of lands.
-1-1-10. Marking of Property Lines on State-Owned Lands: The marking of
property lines or corners on State-owned lands when such marking does not
interfere with the normal public use of the surface of the water.
13-rll. Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Drainage or Dikes:
Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other
facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or
utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system.
13T12. Activities Necessary for Permit Application: Site exploration and
investigation activities that are prerequisites to preparation of an application for
development authorization under this program the Shoreline Master Program, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the
surface waters.
193
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the
environment including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat,
water quality, and aesthetic values.
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon
completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are
restored to conditions existing before the activity.
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this
p-r-egfam the Shoreline Master Program first posts a performance bond or
provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the OevelopmemV-Services
Planning Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW
90.58.550.
14.13. Removal or Control of Aquatic Noxious Weeds: The process of
removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020,
through the use of a herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed
control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement
published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly
with other State agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
45T14. Watershed Restoration Projects: Watershed restoration projects as
defined below:
a. "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project
authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the
194
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
plan or a part of the plan and consists of one (1) or more of the following
activities:
i. A project that involves less than ten (10) miles of stream/each, in
which less than twenty:five (25) cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed,
imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is
removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings.
ii. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream
bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock
as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using
native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water.
iii. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat,
remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery
resource available for use by all of the citizens of the State, provided that any
structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in_stream habitat enhancement
structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred (200) square feet
in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark OHWM of the
stream.
b. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored
by a State department, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a
conservation district, for which agency and public review has been conducted
pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. The
watershed restoration plan generally contains a general program and
195
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-
creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a
stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed.
1&T15. Projects to Improve Fish and Wildlife Passage or Habitat: A public or
private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife
habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and
appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose.
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW.
c. The Development Services Planning Division has determined that the
project is consistent with this the Shoreline Master Program.
jr7-rl6. Hazardous Substance Remediation: Hazardous substance remedial
actions pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(3).
17. Projects on Lands Not Subject to Shoreline Jurisdiction Prior to
Restoration: Actions on land that otherwise would not be under the jurisdiction
of the Shoreline Management Act except for a change in the location of OHWM
or other criteria due to a shoreline restoration project creating a landward shift
in the OHWM that brings the land under the jurisdiction of the Act.
D. EXEMPTION CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
196
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
1. Application Required: Any person claiming exemption from the permit
requirements of this the Shoreline Master Program as a result of the exemptions
specified in this Section shall make application for a no-fee exemption certificate
to the OcveIopment- -Services Planning Division in the manner prescribed by that
division.
2. Consistency Required: Any development which occurs within the
regulated shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction, whether it requires
a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the State law.
3. Conditions Authorized: The City may attach conditions to the approval of
exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the
project with the Shoreline Management Act and this program the Shoreline
Master Program.
4. Permit Required if Project Not Exempt in Part: If any part of a proposed
development is not eligible for exemption, then a shoreline permit is required
for the entire proposed development project.
E. SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit Application: Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or
an exemption from a shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a
proposed development with the Development Services Planning Division. This
will enable the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of this tlie
197
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Shoreline Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement
procedures.
2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: No shoreline
development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first
obtaining a "substantial development permit" from the Pevelopment-Serviees
Planning Division.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees:
Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. Applications for
such permits shall be made on forms and reviewed according to procedures
prescribed by the D o ve I o pmefft-Servf€es--P I a n n i n g Division. Application forms
may be revised from time-to-time by the Development Sefviees-Planning Division
without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to
provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is
justified.
Aooiieatiens shall be made by the property-owner, or his authorized agent,
lessee, eontr-aec—purohaser, or ether person entitled tc>—possession—of the
property a-ndy-except for applications filed by-or-on-oehalf of the City er other
governmental agencies, shall be accompanied by a-r-eeeipt issued by the Finance
Q^nafimen^hevAfig-nsYmerit of the applicable fees-whieh are estaMshed—by
ftM€-4-4:-470, Land Use Review-Fees,
4. Secondary Review By Independent Qualified Professionals: When
appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, or species present, or
198
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
project area conditions, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee may require the applicant to prepare or
fund analyses or activities conducted by third party or parties selected by the
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
designee and paid for by the applicant. Analyses and/or activities conducted
under this subsection include, but are not limited to:
a. Evaluation by an independent qualified professional of the applicant's
analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs,
to include any recommendations as appropriate; and
b. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native
American Indian Tribe or other appropriate agency; and/or
c. Analysis of detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both
on and adjacent or abutting to the site.
5. Public Notice: Three (3) copies of a notice of development application
shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous
public places within three hundred feet (300') feet thereof. The notice of
development application shall also be mailed to property owners within three
hundred feet (300') feet of the boundaries of the subject property. The required
contents of the notice of development application are detailed in RMC 4-8-090B,
Public Notice Requirements.
199
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each such notice of development
application shall include a statement that persons desiring to present their views
to the Development Services Planning Division with regard to said application
may do so in writing to that Ddivision and persons interested in the
development Services-Planning Division's action on an application for a permit
may submit their views in writing or notify the Development Services Planning
Division in writing of their interest within thirty (3Q)--4ays from the-last-date-of
p^keatiofh-of-soch^ urteen (14) days from the date of the notice of
application.
7. Special Public Comment Time: Notice of development application for a
substantial development permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined
in RCW 90.58.140 (ll)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other
measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures
from shoreline erosion shall include a twenty (ZOr-fourteen (14) day comment
period. ———— ———
Such notification or submission of views to the Development Services-Planning
Division shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on the
application.
4T8. Review Guidelines: Unless exempted or authorized through the variance
or conditional use permit provisions of tins the Shoreline Master Program, no
substantial development permit and no other permit shall be granted unless the
proposed development is consistent with the provisions of this the Shoreline
200
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and
regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology there under.
5T9. Conditional Approval: Should the Development Services—Divi-sien
Director- Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or bis/her designee find that any application does not substantially
comply with criteria imposed by the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, he/she may deny such application or attach any terms
or condition which he/she deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose
and objective of this the Shoreline Master Program.
&.10. Notification of- City Departments: It shall be the duty of the
Development Services Planning Division to timely furnish copies of all
applications and actions taken by said division unto such other officials or
departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed
development, including any state or federal agencies and Indian tribes.
F. REVIEW CRITERIA:
1. General: The Development Services Planning Division shall review an
application for a permit based on the following:
a. The application.
b. The environmental checklist or environmental impact statement, if
one is required.
c. Written comments from interested persons.
d. Information and comments from all affected City departments.
201
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
e. inderjer>4eot--st4j4v—^
Poli€y4>evelof3M-tie^ Evidence presented at a public hearing.
f- EAideRee—presented at a photic hearing should—the—Development
Sefvices-Division-a^^ Development Department deci4e44>at-4^veH4le
leie-tle-pi^jli^^ hold a poblic hearing.—Tie-Development Sorvicos
Division andthe-Poticy Dcvciepmeftt-Departmcnt shallbave-frowefs-to prescribe
f-ules and reg-t^ations-fer such hearings^ No authorization to undertake use or
development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the Administrator of
the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee unless
upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the
policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline
Master Program.
2. Additional Information: The •Development Services-Planning Division may
require an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that
contained or required in the application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate
environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed
development by another agency, the City's Environmental Review committee
shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when
the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement.
3. Procedural Amendments: In addition to the criteria hereinabove set
forth in this Section, the feffl-mngylSwie^ of
Community and Economic Development may from time-to-time promulgate
202
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced
to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and
the Department of Ecology.
4. Burden of Proof on Applicant: The burden of proving that the proposed
substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met
before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant.
G. -BOMBS-SURETY DEVICES:
The Development Services Planning Division may require the applicant to
post a -bend-surety device in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance
with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any shoreline
permit. Said bend-surety device shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the
City that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated
and in accordance with RMC 4-1-230 Surety and Bonds.
H. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
The Department of Community and Economic Development shall have the
final authority to interpret the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Renton.
Where an application is denied or changed, per subsection E6 of this Section, an
applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a "substantial
development permit" to the Shoreline Hearings Board for an open record appeal
in accordance with RMC 4-8-110. See RMC 4-8-110H for appeal procedures to
the Shoreline Hearings Board.
I. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES:
203
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
1. Purpose: The power to grant variances and conditional use permits
should be utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will
assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable
manner.
2. Authority
a. City He
have—authority—to—grant—conditional—use—permits—and—variances—m—the
administration of the—Renton—Master—T^regrarm—Conditional Use Permits:
Conditional use permits shall be processed either by the Hearing Examiner or
administratively in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-2-060 Zoning Use
Table, provided that:
i. Additional requirements for conditional use permits may be
provided within shoreline jurisdiction in this section and will prevail over the
provisions of RMC 4-2-060.
ii. If an administrative process is not specified, a conditional use
permit shall be processed by the Hearing Examiner.
iii. Proposed uses not specified in this Section or in RMC 4-2-060 and
not prohibited may be allowed by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit.
b. Variances: The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant
conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton
Master Program.
204
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
brC. State Department of Ecology Decision: Both variances and
conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the
Attorney General's office for approval or denial.
€rd. Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: Conditional permits and
variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from
the date of receipt by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's
office unless written communication is received by the applicant and the City
indicating otherwise.
i. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with the State
in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
ii. Permit validity requirements of subsection J of this Section shall
apply to conditional use and variance permits.
iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in
accordance with RMC 4-8-110H.
3. teter-fifetatiof>—Maintenance of Permitted Uses Allowed: It shall be
recognized that a lawful use at the time the Shoreline Master Program is
adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance and restoration
shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit.
4. Variances:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit
may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Rent&n
Shoreline Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the
205
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the
criteria established in the Ronton Shoreline Master Program would cause undue
and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties.
b. Decision Criteria: The fact that the applicant might make a greater
profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Shoreline
Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The land Use
Hearing Examiner must find each of the following:
i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying
to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply
generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the
owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this the Shoreline Master Program.
v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm
will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the
applicant by denying it, the variance will shall be denied, but each property
owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as
long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and
206
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this the
Shoreline Master Program.
vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
vii. Proposals that vary the size of the vegetation conservation buffer
must provide for off-site mitigation in accordance RMC4-3-090F.l.k.
5. Conditional Use:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with
conditional use permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The
objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility
for implementing the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. With
provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to
include many uses.
b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted
only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make
the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use
per mit wit! may be granted subject to the Administrator of the Department of
Community and Economic Development or designee determining compliance
with each of the following conditions:
i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that
area.
ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
207
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and
the City's Shoreline Master Program.
iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the Gity^s Shoreline Master Program.
v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
J. TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE PERMITS:
a^The time requirements of this Section shall apply to all substantial
development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance
or conditional use permit authorized under this-the Shoreline Master Program.
2. Unspecified Time Limits: Where specific provisions are not included to
establish time limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the
Department of Ecology, the time limits in subsections .1.6 and J.8 of this Section
apply-
fer-3. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Substantial Developments: If
it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections 42~and J3 J.6 and
J.8 of this Section should not be applied, the f^evelopnienc-^efvices-Planning
Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a substantial
development permit upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements
and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and
provisions of this the Shoreline Master Program and RCW 90.58.143.
4. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Conditional Uses or Shoreline
208
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Variances: If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections J-2-
and J3-J.6 and J.8 of this Section should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner,
upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department of
Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a
conditional use or variance permit. "Good cause" means that the time limits
established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the
development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted.
Or-Where specific previsions are not included to establish time-4imits on a
fjef^Ht-as-part-ef-actioi^^-on a pefffflt-by-4bc City or the-DGpsfyfren^-^-Eeeiegfj
the time limits in Subsections43-and J3 of-this Section apply.
4r-5. Extension Requests: Requests for permit extension shall be made in
accordance with subsections J-2-and J3 J.6 and J.8 of this Section.
a^Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as
authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection 41—J.2 or J.3 of this Section,
construction activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted
pursuant to this the Shoreline Master Program must be commenced within two
(2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall
terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the
Services-Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to
exceed one (1) year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has
been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of
Standard Period of Validity:
209
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of
Ecology.
ijy 7. Certification of Construction Commencement: Construction activities
or commencement of construction referenced in subsection Jj-a-J.6 of this
Section means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must
be issued, and foundation inspections must be approved and completed before
the end of the two (2)-year period.
3-r-S. Time Allowed for Construction Completion: A permit authorizing
construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the
effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified
pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and subsections J4-J.2 or J.3 of this Section. If an
applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline
permit the Oevelo^mef^c-Sefvic-es-Planning Division shall review the permit and
upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline
permit for a period of up to one (1) year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate.
Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and
the Department of Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is
the applicant's responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in
accordance with adopted Building Codes.
4x-9. Effective Date of Filing:
ar-For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective
date of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or
210
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
shoreline variance permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW
90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections 42-an443-J.6 and J.8 of this
Section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually
pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions, or due
to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the
development that authorize the development to proceed, including all
reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or
approvals.
hr-10. Notification to City of Other Permits and Legal Actions: It is the
responsibility of the applicant to inform the Development Services-Planning
Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other
than the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or
approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to
the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline permit or
the provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the
effective date of the shoreline permit.
€-T-11. Permit Processing Time: The City shall issue permits within applicable
time limits specified m the Type II! and-T-ype Vi review-pfoceses m-RMG4-8-0&QH
by state law. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as
defined in RCW 90.58.140(ll)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other
measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures
211
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty one (21) days of the last day
of the comment periods specified in RMC 4-9-190E^ 4-9-190E.6 and 7.
a^—12. Construction Not Authorized Until Proceedings Completed: No
construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no
building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by
the City until twenty one (21) days from the date the permit was filed with the
Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings
are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of
filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-
130.
b^l3. Special Allowance for Construction: If the granting of a shoreline
permit by the City is appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board, and the Shoreline
Hearings Board has approved the granting of the permit, and an appeal for
judicial review of the Shoreline Hearings Board decision is filed, construction
authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods, and other
provisions of RCW 90.58.140(5)(b).
K. RULINGS TO STATE:
Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under
authority of this the Shoreline Master Program, whether it is an approval or
denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed
concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the
212
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Oevetopmeol -Sefvices-P I a n n i n g Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with
RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
L. TRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT:
If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or
firm, such permit may be transferred to the new owner.
M. ENFORCEMENT:
All provisions of this the Shoreline Master Program shall be enforced by the
Oeveiepment Services—Planning Division. For such purposes, the Direc-tor-
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or
his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer.
N. RESCISSION OF PERMITS:
1. Noncompliance with Permit: Any shoreline permit issued under the
terms of this the Shoreline Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by
the Development Services Planning Division of the City upon a finding that a
permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit.
2. Notice of Noncompliance: Such rescission and/or modification of an
issued permit shall be initiated by serving written notice of noncompliance on
the permittee, which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the address listed on the application or to such other
address as the applicant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice
may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same
manner as service of summons as provided by law.
213
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
3. Posting: In addition to such notice, the Oeveieeffte^--Sefviees-P I a n 11 i n g
Division shall cause to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one
(1) posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit.
4. Public Hearing: Before any such permit can be rescinded, a public hearing
shall be held by the land-Use Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing
shall be made in accordance with RMC 4-8-090D, Public Notice Requirements.
5. Final Decision OP—Recommendation: The decision of the i-and Use
Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision of the City on all rescinded
applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of
Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other
departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative
body of the City. fofr-eonditional uses or-vafiaflces-the Depaftmont of Ecology
has thirty (30) days to-ma-k-e a final decisicH^4ollowod-4^y-a-4wefity one (21) day
appeal periodr
0. APPEALS:
See RMC4-8-110H.
P. VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES:
1. Violations of This Chapter and Penalties:—Unless otherwise specified;
violations of this Section areHnisdemeanofs-snbiect-tQ^MC 1-3-1. Prosecution:
Every person violating any of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program or
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable under conviction by a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment not
214
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each
day's violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
2. Injunction: The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or
other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines
of the State within the City's jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions
and programs of this the Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Section
and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
3. Public and Private -Redr-ess Violators Liable for Damages: Any person
subject to the regulatory program of this the Shoreline Master Program who
violates any provision of this the/Shoreline Master Program or the provisions of
a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or
private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the
affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring
suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons
shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own
behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been
established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation, the Court shall
make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a
reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief,
including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney's
fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.
215
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Q. SHORELINE MORATORIUM:
1. The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as
necessary and appropriate to implement the provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act.
2. Prior to adopting such moratorium or other interim official controls, the
City Council shall:
a. Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control within sixty (60)
days of adoption;
b. Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to,
justifications for the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the
desired and likely outcomes; and
c. Notify the Department of Ecology of the moratorium or control
immediately after its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and
date of any public hearing held.
3. Said moratorium or other official control shall provide that all lawfully
existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed
lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and
redeveloped, so long as the use Is not expanded, under the terms of the land use
and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
4. Said moratorium or control adopted under this Section may be effective
for up to six (6) months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and
circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made
216
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two (2)
six (6)-month periods if the City Council complies with subsection 4-9-190Q.2.a
before each renewal.
5. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed Master
Program or amendment is submitted to the Department of Ecology, the
moratorium or control must remain in effect until the department's final action
under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six (6) months after the
date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
SECTION XI. Chapter 10, Legal Nonconforming Structures, uses and Lots, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a new section 4-10-095, entitled
"Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites", to read as
follows:
4-10-095 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES.
STRUCTURES, AND SITES:
A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the applicable Shoreline Master
Program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present
regulations or standards of the program, may be continued provided that:
A. Nonconforming Structures: Nonconforming structures shall be governed
by RMC 4-10-050, with the exception of docks and piers, which shall be governed
217
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
by RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks, and shoreline stabilization structures, which
shall be governed by RMC 4-3-090F.4 Shoreline Stabilization.
B. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-
10-060.
C. Nonconforming Site: A lot which does not conform to development
regulations on a site not related to the characteristics of a structure including,
but not limited to, the vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization,
landscaping, parking, fence, driveway, street opening, pedestrian amenity,
screening and other regulations of the district in which it is located due to
changes in Code requirements, condemnation or annexation.
D. Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved.
E. Continuation of Use: The continuation of existing use and activities does
not require prior review or approval. Operation, maintenance, or repair of
existing legally established structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities,
public or private roads, or drainage systems, that do not require construction
permits are allowed. Such improvements are only allowed if the activity does
not modify the character, scope, or size of the original structure or facility or
increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the sensitive area or buffer
and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed
operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes
vegetation management performed in accordance with best management
practices that is part of ongoing maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or
218
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
utilities, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing
maintenance, do not expand further into the sensitive area, are not the result of
an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an
endangered or threatened species.
F. Partial and Fuli Compliance, Alteration of an Existing Structure or Site:
The following provisions shall apply to lawfully established uses, buildings
and/or structures and related site development that do not meet the specific
standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Alteration or expansion of existing
structures may take place with partial compliance with the standards of this
code, as provided below, provided that the proposed alteration or expansion will
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. In no case shall a structure
with a non-conforming setback from the shoreline be allowed to extend further
waterward than the existing structure.
1. Partial Compliance for Non-Single-Family Development: The following
provisions shall apply to all development except single family:
Alteration of an Existing Structure Compliance Standard
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n Expansion or remodel that does not
change the building footprint or
increase impervious surface.
No site changes required.
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Expansion of building footprint by up
to 500 sq. ft. or up to 10% (whichever
is less); or
• Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Expansion of impervious surface by
up to 1,000 sq. ft. or up to 10%
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(whichever is less); or 090F.1 Vegetation Conservation
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Remodeling or renovation that equals
less than 30% of the replacement
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of at least 50% of the area
219
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
value of the existing structures or
improvements, excluding plumbing,
electrical and mechanical systems and
normal repair and maintenance-
Expansion of building footprint by
more than 500 sq. ft. or between
10.1-25% (whichever is less); or
Expansion of impervious surface by
more than 1,000 sq. ft., or between
10.1-25% (whichever is less); or
Remodeling or renovation that equals
30.1-50% of the replacement value of
the existing structures or
improvements, excluding plumbing,
electrical and mechanical systems and
normal repair and maintenance.
between an existing building and the
water's edge/provided that the area
to be revegetated does not exceed 10
ft., unless a greater area is desired by
the applicant, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional
and approved by Administrator of the
Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee
that would provide at least equal
protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
• Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a
water-dependent use.
o Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Partial compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F.1 Vegetation Conservation
consisting of revegetation of a native
co m m u n ity of at I e a st 80% of t h e a re a
between an existing building and the
water's edge, or at least 10 ft., or
o An alternate mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional
and approved by the Administrator of i
the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee
that would provide at least equal
protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
° Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a
water-dependent use.
• Piers and Docks shall be required to
replace any solid decking with light
penetrating surfacing materials.
220
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
a Install site improvements that protect the
ecological functions and processes of the
shoreline, consisting of either:
o Full compliance with Vegetation
Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-
090F.l.Vegetation Conservation
consisting of revegetation of a native
community of the full required*
buffer, or 100% of the area between
an existing building and the water's
edge if the full buffer cannot be
planted, or at least 10 ft., or
o An alternate mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional
and approved by the Administrator of
the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee
that would provide at least equal
protection of ecological functions and
processes as the full required*
setback and buffer.
o Remove over water structures that do not
provide public access, or do not serve a
water-dependent use.
® Piers and Docks shall be required to
replace any solid decking with light
penetrating surfacing materials.
• Developments with existing shoreline
stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts
of shoreline stabilization in one of the
following ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not
conforming to, or otherwise
permitted by, the provisions of this
code shall be reviewed and upgraded
according to the standards of R1V1C 4-
3-090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization
Alternatives Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal
prepared by a qualified professional
and approved by the Administrator of
the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee
221
Expansion of building footprint by
more than 25%; or
Expansion of impervious surface by
more than 25%; or
Remodeling or renovation that equals
more than 50% of the replacement
value of the existing structures or
improvements, excluding plumbing,
electrical and mechanical systems and
normal renairand maintenance.
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
that would identify near shore
mitigation to improve shoreline
function or values on-site, or
o If the two alternatives above are
infeasible, then the project proponent
shall contribute to an off-site
vegetation conservation fund, in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090F.l.k.
*The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk
Standards, or as modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
2. Partial Compliance for Single-Family Development: Lawfully constructed
single-family homes built before the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program
({Insert Ordinance Adoption Date Here)) shall be considered conforming if
expansion or replacement is consistent with the standards below:
Alteration of an Existing Structure Compliance Standard
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Expansion or remodel
that does not change the
building footprint or
increase impervious
surface.
No site changes required.
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n :
Expansion of building
footprint by up to 500 sq.
ft. outside of the
required* setback; or
No site changes required.
Mi
n
o
r A
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n :
Expansion of impervious
surface by up to 1,000 sq.
ft. outside of the
required* setback.
No site changes required.
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Expansion of building
footprint within the
o Install site improvements that protect the ecological
functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
required* setback in any either:
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
amount, or total o Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
expansion of 500 sq. ft. to
1,000 sq. ft.; or
provisions of RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
222
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Expansion of impervious
surface within the
required* setback in any
amount, or total
expansion of 1,000 sq. ft.
to 1,500 sq.ft.
Expansion of building
footprint by more than
1,000 sq. ft., or
Expansion of impervious
surface by more than
1,500 sq. ft.
Conservation consisting of revegetation of a
native community of at least 80% of the area
between an existing building and the water's
edge provided that the area to be revegetated
need not be more than 25% of the lot depth in
feet, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a
qualified professional and approved bvthe
Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee that
would provide at least equal protection of
ecological functions and processes as the full
required* setback and buffer-
s' Docks shall be required to replace solid decking with
light penetrating surfacing materials.
o Install site improvements that protect the ecological
functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of
either: • . • • • • •
o Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation
provisions of RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation
Conservation consisting of revegetation of a
native community of the full required* buffer, or
100% of the area between an existing building
and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be
planted, or
o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared bv a
qualified professional and approved by the
Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee that
would provide at least equal protection of
ecological functions and processes as the full
required* setback and buffer.
° Docks shall be required to replace solid decking with
light penetrating surfacing materials.
o Developments with existing shoreline stabilization
shall mitigate for the impacts of shoreline stabilization
in one of the following ways:
o Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming
to, or otherwise permitted by, the provisions of
this code shall be reviewed and upgraded
according to the standards of RMC 4-3-
090F.4.a.iii Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives
223
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Hierarchy, or
o An alternative mitigation proposal prepared by a
qualified professional and approved by the
Administrator of the Department of Community
and Economic Development or designee that
would identify near shore mitigation to improve
shoreline function or values on-site, or
o If the two alternatives above are infeasible, then
the project proponent shall contribute to an off-
site vegetation conservation fund, in accordance
with RMC4-3-090F.l.k.
*The full buffer/setback as required in RMC 4-3-090D.7.a Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as
modified under RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
SECTION XI. The definition of "Act" in section 4-11-010, Definitions A, of Chapter 11,
Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as follows:
ACT, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline
Master Program Regulations, use only.) The Shoreline Management Act of 1971,
chapter 90.58 RCW as amended.
SECTION XII. Section 4-11-020, Definitions B, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a new definition of "Breakwater" and
to revise the definition of "Buffer, Shorelines", as follows:
BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose
of protecting the shoreline or harbor area from wave action.
BUFFER, SHORELINES: A parcel or strip of land that is designed and
designated to permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural
224
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
condition to protect an adjacent aquatic, riparian, or wetland site from upland
impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. Uses
and activities within the buffer are extremely limited.
SECTION XIII. Section 4-11-030, Definitions C, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions of "Community Access" and
"Conditional Use, Shoreline", to read as follows:
COMMUNITY ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master
Program Regulations, use only.) A means of physical approach to and/or along
the shoreline available to the residents, tenants, customers, patrons, guests,
and/or other authorized users of a development. Community access may also
include space set aside for outdoor recreation including: picnic areas, view
points, water craft launch facilities, and may also include other similar features.
CONDITIONAL USE, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline
Master Program Regulations, use only.) A use, development, or substantial
development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the
applicable Master Program.
SECTION XIV. The definition of "Floodway" in section 4-11-060, Definitions F, of
Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as
follows:
225
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
FLOODWAY: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the definition of "shoreland,"
"floodway" means those portions of the area as identified in a Master Program,
that either: (i) Has been established in federal emergency management agency
flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps; or (ii) consists of those portions of
a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon
which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being
identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or
changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition, Regardless of
the method used to identify the floodway, the floodway shall not include those
lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by
flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the
federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
SECTION XV. The definition of "Hearings Board" in section 4-11-080, Definitions H, of
Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as
follows:
HEARINGS BOARD, SHORELINE: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by
the Shoreline Management Act.
226
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
SECTION XVi. The definitions of "Landfill" and "Local Service Utilities" in section 4-11-
120, Definitions L, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington",
are hereby amended as follows:
LANDFILL: Creation or maintenance of beach-or-creation-of-dr-v-^ area
by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel-er—erther materials into shoreline areas.
Addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other
material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands, in a
manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
LOCAL SERVICE UTILITIES: Public or private utilities normally servicing a
neighborhood or defined subarea in the City, i.e., telephone exchanges; sanitary
sewer, both storm and sanitary stormwater facilities; distribution lines, electrical
less than fifty-five (55) kv, telephone, cable TV, etc.
SECTION XVII. The definition of "Multiple use" in section 4-11-130, Definitions M, of
Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as
follows:
MULTIPLE USE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) The combining of compatible uses within one
development, ef-wbieb-4be--m a j o r use or activity is water oriented. All uses or
activities othef-4bafh-tbe-major one are-d+fectly related aRd necessary te-tbe
227
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
fflajef-uso or activity, in which water-oriented and non-water-oriented uses are
included.
SECTION XVIII. Section 4-11-140, Definitions N, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions of "Nonconforming Site",
"Non-Water-Dependant Use" and "Non-Water-Oriented Use", to read as follows:
NONCONFORMING SITE: A lot which does not conform to development
regulations not related to the characteristics of a structure but to the facilities
provided on a site including but not limited to, the vegetation conservation,
shoreline stabilization, landscaping, parking, fence, driveway, street opening,
pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the district in which it is
located due to changes in Code requirements, or annexation.
NON-WATER-DEPENDENT USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent.
NON-WATER-ORIENTED USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent,
water-related, or water-enjoyment.
SECTION XIX. The definition of "Ordinary High Water Mark" in subsection 4-11-150,
Definitions 0, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance
No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby
amended as follows:
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM): On lakes and streams, that mark
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and
action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary
228
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971-as of the
effective date of regulations, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may
change in accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following
criteria clarify this mark on lakes and streams:
A. Lakes: Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be
the line of mean high water.
B. Streams: Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be
the line of mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark
is found on the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the
braiding occurs.
SECTION XX. Section 4-11-160, Definitions P, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add definitions of "Party of Record",
"Permit, Shoreline", "Public Aquatic Lands" and "Public Interest", and to revise the definitions
of "Pier" and "Public Access", as follows:
PARTY OF RECORD: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master
Program Regulations, use only.) All persons, agencies or organizations who have
submitted written comments in response to a notice of application; made oral
comments in a formal public hearing conducted on the application; or notified
local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final decision on a
permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such notice by mail.
229
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
PERMIT, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master
Program Regulations, use only.) Any substantial development, variance,
conditional use permit, or revision authorized under chapter 90.58 RCW.
PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a
fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. This
definition does not include overwater trails.
PUBLIC AQUATIC LANDS: Land managed by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) located inside the designated inner
harbor line.
PUBLIC ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline
available to the general public. This may also include visual approach.
PUBLIC INTEREST: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master
Program Regulations, use only.) The interest shared by the citizens of the state
or community at large in the affairs of government, or some interest by which
their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not limited to, an effect on
public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or
development.
SECTION XXi. The definition of "Recreation" in section 4-11-180, Definitions R, of
Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended as
follows:
230
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
RECREATION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play,
amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as
boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural
beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. This definition includes both public and
private facilities.
SECTION XXII. Section 4-11-190, Definitions S, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a definition of "Shoreline Stabilization",
and to revise the definitions of "Setback", "Structure" and "Substantial Development", as
follows:
SETBACK: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A required open space specified in the Shoreline Master
Program, measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary
high water mark OHWM.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION: Structural and nonstructural methods to address
erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by
natural processes, such as currents, floods, tides, wind, or wave action.
STRUCTURE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A-cemfeination of material-constructed or ercctecl-ott-tbe
grotmd-or water or attached to something ha\4eg-a4eeatkjn on the ground-ef
water.—A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work
231
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner,
whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except
for vessels.
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or
fair market value exceeds twe-thousand five bw4r-e4-do liars ($2,50&OQ7--five
thousand dollars ($5,000) or any development which materially interferes with
the normal public use of the water or shoreline of the State. Exemptions in RCW
90.58.030(3)(e) and in RMC 4-9-190C are not considered substantial
developments.
SECTION XXIII. Section 4-11-220, Definitions V, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to add a definition of "Vessel", to read as
follows:
VESSEL: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) Ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are
designed and used for navigation and do not interfere with the normal public
use of the water.
SECTION XXIV. Section 4-11-230, Definitions W, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to revise the definitions of "Water-
Dependant", "Water-Enjoyment", "Water-Oriented/Nonwater Oriented" and "Water-Related",
as follows:
232
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
WATER-DEPENDENT USE: Referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot
exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the
intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include
ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading
facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane
facilities and sewer outfalls.
WATER-ENJOYMENT USE: Referring to a recreational use, or other use
facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use;
or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the
use and which through the location, design and operation assures the public's
ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to
qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public
and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the
specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-
enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, parks, piers and other
improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state; and
general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants,
museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts/hotels, riverwalk
developments, and mixeemultiple use commercial/office/residential
developments; provided that such uses conform to the above water-enjoyment
specifications and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
233
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
WATER-ORIENTED USE/NQNWAT£R-€4^^T-^^
aov--eom44nation of water dependent, watefH^elatedr-end/er water ef4eymem:
t^es-ar4d-se^ves-as-an-ati^^ nder the
-ShofeUf4e-MaftaeeffKMwW^ serves to-4esef4be-4nose-Hses
w&tc4>443ve little e^-ne^^efatieftsl^p-to the shorcline-and are not-considered
fff+CHitv-uses-mdef—the-^^ Act. Exa meles-e4-nenwetef-
e^iented-uses include-pfe4%ssieeal-6444eesT-a4j^^ or repaif^-sbopsrmw-
5tefaf^e-4%ajitie6^-i^ stores and
gas stations; these uses may be considered—water oriented where there 4s
stenificanc-rwljtic—^ refers to a use that is water-
dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, or a combination of such uses.
WATER-RELATED USE: Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not
intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location, but whose economic viability is
dependent upon a waterfront location because:
1. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival
or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent
commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its
services less expensive and/or more convenient. Examples include
manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a
significant factor in the products cost, professional services serving primarily
water-dependent activities and storage of water-transported foods.
234
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods
transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating
plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport
is by tanker, and log storage.
SECTION XV. The Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Shoreline Environment Overlays Map and the Shoreline Restoration Plan are hereby adopted in
their entirety as shown on Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, and incorporated herein as if fully
set forth.
SECTION XVI. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes to
the City's Comprehensive Plan to evidence the aforementioned amendment.
SECTION XVII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five
(5) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCILthis 24th day of October r 2011.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 24th day of October
j 2011.
Denis Law, Mayor
235
ORDINANCE NO. 5633
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 10/28/2011 (summary)
ORD:1693:10/17/ll:scr
236
Exhibit A
Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline Management Goals
The City adopts the goals and principles of the Shoreline Management Act as provided in RCW
90.58.020 and as particularly relevant to Renton.
1. The shoreline jurisdiction is one of the most valuable and fragile of the City's natural
resources. There is appropriate concern throughout the watershed and the greater
Puget Sound Region relating to the utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation
of the shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Ever increasing pressures of additional use are being placed on the shoreline
jurisdiction, which in turn necessitates increased coordination in its management and
development.
3. Much of the shoreline jurisdiction and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private
ownership. Unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned
shorelines is not in the best public interest; therefore, coordinated planning is necessary
in order to protect the public interest associated with the shoreline jurisdiction while
recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest.
4. There is a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly
performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an
uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
5. It is the intent of the City to provide for the management of the shoreline jurisdiction by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. The Shoreline Master
Program is designed to ensure the development in a manner that, while allowing for
limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and
enhance the public interest.
6. The City's shoreline policies are intended to protect against adverse effects to the public
health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their
aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights
incidental thereto.
7. In the implementation of the Shoreline Master Program, the public's opportunity to
enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines shall be preserved to the
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state, the county,
and the people generally. To this end, uses shall be preferred which are consistent with
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are unique
to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.
Exhibit A -1
Ordinance 5633
8. Alterations of the natural condition of the shoreline, in those limited instances when
authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant
structures; ports; shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas,
piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines; industrial and
commercial developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of
the shoreline jurisdiction; and other development that will provide an opportunity for
substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines.
9. Permitted uses in the shorelines zone shall be designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of
the shoreline jurisdiction and any interference with the public's use of the water.
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the
philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural
resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public
interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful
effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our state's shorelines.
Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as
marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial
and industrial uses.
The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act
recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable
and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive
industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research
and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and
chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct.
Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition of
all use of shorelines also could eliminate their human utility and value. Thus, the policy goals of
the Act relate both to utilization and protection of the extremely valuable and vulnerable
shoreline resources of the state. The act calls for the accommodation of "all reasonable and
appropriate uses" consistent with "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the
land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and
consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as
distinguished from the development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, only
one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and
easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert
with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any
public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited
to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects,
and incentive programs.
Exhibit A - 2
Ordinance 5633
Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration,
and preservation of "fragile" shoreline, "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its
vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the
Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal
consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological
functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial
development permit requirement of the Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and
development that is exempt from the Act's permit requirements. The principle regarding
protection of shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in several ways,
and in the context of related principles.
Local Responsibility
Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary
responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory
requirements of the Act, with the Washington State Department of Ecology acting in a
supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and
regulatory requirements.
As set forth in the provisions of the Act, local governments must fulfill the following basic
requirements:
• Use a process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of
current and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines.
• Include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological
functions, including:
o Regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will
not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline,
o Local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation
standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal
limitations on the regulation of private property.
• Include goals and policies that provide for restoration of impaired ecological functions
that include identifying existing policies and programs that contribute to planned
restoration goals, as well as any additional policies and programs that local government
will implement to achieve its goals. This Master Program element considers established
or funded non-regulatory policies and the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory
or non-regulatory programs.
• Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future
development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered
by the policy goals of the Act, address adverse cumulative impacts, and fairly allocate
the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities.
Development of the Master Program
Exhibit A - 3
Ordinance 5633
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) directs all local
governments to develop a Master Program for the management of all shorelines of the state
and associated shore lands that are under the local governments' jurisdictions.
Shoreline management is most effective and efficient when accomplished within the context of
comprehensive planning. The Growth Management Act requires mutual and internal
consistency between the comprehensive plan elements and implementing development
regulations (RCW 36.70A).
This Master Program has been prepared and updated to comply with the requirements of the
Shoreline Management and Growth Management Acts and to formulate guidelines that will
regulate the utilization and development of the shorelines within the City of Renton. As part of
this Master Program, the City of Renton has established administrative provisions, including a
permit system for any substantial development, as well as review provisions to ensure that all
development complies with the policies and regulations of the program.
The City of Renton has conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics,
present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline that provides a
substantial information base for understanding ecological functions and other considerations
for the development of this Master Program update.
The City of Renton, with the involvement of its local citizens, agencies, and interested parties
has developed this Shoreline Master Program to serve as both a planning guide and resource
for specific regulations pertaining to development and use of the shorelines in Renton.
Included is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and
provisions for variances and conditional uses.
The basic intent of this Master Program is to provide for the management of shorelines of the
state within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate
uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote
and enhance the best interests of the general public. This Master Program has further been
composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines and, at the same
time, to recognize and protect the legal property rights of owners consistent with the public
interest. The goals and policies of this Master Program are formulated so as to enhance the
public use and enjoyment of the shorelines. It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State
found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area, and that they are subject to ever
increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management
and development of the shorelines. The Shoreline Master Program is a planned, rational, and
concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the Shorelines of the State
in Renton.
Regulated Shorelines
Overview: Over 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning area are under the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By statutory standards, the Green River
and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance, and comprise
Exhibit A-4
Ordinance 5633
approximately 5.8 miles of the Shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. In addition,
the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines
within the City. These 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are an extremely valuable
resource not only to the City of Renton, but also for the watersheds of which they are part and
for the greater Puget Sound community of which Renton is an integral part.
Shoreline Jurisdiction: In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the
Act:
Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which
includes Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in Renton Municipal
Code (RMC) 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington
b. Green River (The area within the ordinary high water mark of
the Green River is not within the Renton City Limits, but
portions of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are within city
limits.)
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st
Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 32-24-5E WM
c. Black River
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW
43rd Street on the south
e. Lake Desire (in the city's future annexation area)
Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: The jurisdictional area includes:
1. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the
ordinary high water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways,
whichever is greater;
2. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
3. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams,
lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State
Shoreline Management Act.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which make it
valuable, particularly Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake
Washington and the Green River. Preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in
descending order of priority (as established by Chapter 90.58.020 RCW) for Shorelines of
Statewide Significance:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for
Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
Exhibit A - 5
Ordinance 5633
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
Development, redevelopment, and use of Lake Washington shall recognize and
protect the statewide interest in terms of providing for benefits to the general public
in terms of:
• Preserving and enhancing the natural character and ecological functions of
the shoreline to provide long-term public benefits to fish stocks, many of
which depend on south Lake Washington for a key phase of their lifecycle.
• Increasing public access to the shoreline and integrating public access on
individual sites with an integrated non-motorized trail system to allow access
to persons not living or on near the shoreline.
• Ensuring that impacts of development are mitigated to ensure the long-term
benefits of a productive environment over short-term economic benefits.
• Providing a variety of recreational opportunities for the public in multiple use
development on the shoreline.
• Providing high standards for design and aesthetics in the shoreline site and
building design to address the visual character and quality of the range of
public use of the lake and shorelines. Design and review standards shall
achieve high-quality landmark developments that are integrated with the
natural environment, that provide appropriate transition to areas of less
intense development, and integrate building height, bulk, setbacks,
landscaping, and signage into a cohesive whole.
• The redevelopment of former industrial areas on the Lake Washington
shoreline will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community
providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to
the region. Multiple use projects will take advantage of the amenities of the
lake while providing opportunities for water-oriented uses, public access
and/ or ecological enhancement.
Geographic Environments: Shorelines are classified into separate geographic areas known as
"use environments" based upon current development pattern, biophysical capabilities, and
other factors. Policies, standards, and regulations can be customized by the use environment,
shoreline, and other uses depending on need. Generally, regulated shorelines include the
water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high
water mark for 200 feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all
marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State.
The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation.
The overlay districts in the Renton Shoreline Master Program are classified as zoning overlay
districts and include six districts:
Exhibit A - 6
Ordinance 5633
1. Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and
preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically
intact as close to their natural state as possible. The natural environment is
intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation.
Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment: A Natural Area designation is
assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply:
• The shoreline retains the majority of natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by
the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but
not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline
modifications, structures, and intensive human uses.
• Shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and
terrestrial environments, which could be lost or significantly reduced by human
development.
• The shoreline represents ecosystems that are of particular scientific and
educational interest.
• Shorelines with large areas of relatively undisturbed areas of wetlands.
• Shorelines that support specific important wildlife habitat, such as heron
rookeries.
• The shoreline is unable to support new development, extractive uses, or physical
modifications or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions.
2. Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District
Objective: The purpose of the Urban Conservancy environment is to protect,
conserve, restore, and manage existing areas with ecological functions of open
space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed
settings, while allowing compatible uses.
Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
• Areas of high scenic value.
• Areas of open space, floodplain, or other sensitive areas such as wetlands or
geological hazards that should not be more intensively developed.
• Areas that retain important ecological functions, including areas, which, even
though they are partially developed, provide valuable wildlife habitat or essential
aquatic habitat functions.
• Areas with the potential for ecological restoration.
• Areas that cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development.
• Areas with unique or fragile features.
3. Shoreline Single Family Residential Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
Exhibit A-7
Ordinance 5633
to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are
consistent with this chapter.
Areas to Be Designated: The Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
applied to and characterized by single-family use and zoning.
oreline High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for
large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multi-family
residential use and public services. This district provides opportunities for water-
dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions
and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially
access to and along the water's edge.
Areas to Be Designated: The Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District is designated
in areas characterized by: commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning or use, but
not meeting the criteria for conservancy or natural designation.
Management Policies:
Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for high-intensity urban uses
are a limited resource, development opportunities are largely limited to
redevelopment. Existing industrial and commercial uses on the shoreline are not
water-dependent. It is unlikely that the Renton shoreline will provide opportunities
for a commercial port, or other major water-oriented industrial uses. However,
there may be opportunity for some types of water-dependent uses to be integrated
into existing multiple-use developments or redevelopment projects, particularly on
Lake Washington. Opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses are
likely to be oriented to recreation, public enjoyment, transportation, and moorage.
Emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and
particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses.
Non-water-oriented Activities: Non-water-oriented uses should be permitted as part
of development that also includes water-oriented use. Non-water-oriented uses
should be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit
opportunities for water-oriented uses, or on sites where there is not direct access to
the shoreline. Non-water-oriented uses allowed in the shoreline should provide
ecological restoration and/or public access along the full length of shoreline
frontage.
Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access
to water in the High Intensity Overlay District. Identifying needs and planning for
the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water is addressed
in Public Access regulations in 4-3-090.E.4.g Table of Public Access Requirements by
Exhibit A-8
Ordinance 5633
Reach. Public access is one of the primary public benefits that may be necessary to
locate development on the shoreline.
Ecological Restoration: Providing for restoration of ecological functions is one of the
public benefits necessary to locate non-water-oriented development on the
shoreline. Ecological restoration opportunities are limited in Renton due to the
developed nature of much of the shoreline. Generally, new development and
redevelopment should remove and replace shoreline armoring that does not meet
standards of this code, restore native vegetation and wetlands, as well as restore the
aquatic substrate. Public access may be required to be set back from restored areas
with controlled access to the water's edge at locations that are less ecologically
sensitive.
Aesthetics: Aesthetic objectives shall be implemented by appropriate development
siting, building bulk, design standards, screening, landscaping, and maintenance of
natural vegetative buffers.
5. Shoreline Isolated High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective and Areas to be Designated: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay-
Isolated Lands overlay is to provide appropriate regulations for areas that are within
shoreline jurisdiction but are with separate parcels effectively isolated from the
water by intervening elements of the built environment, largely consisting of
railroads and roads or intervening private parcels. In most cases, these areas
function as parallel designations with other designations applied to the area
adjacent to the water.
6. Aquatic Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Aquatic designation is to protect, restore, and
manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Areas to be Designated: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area
waterward of the ordinary high water mark of all streams and rivers, all marine
water bodies, and all lakes, constituting shorelines of the state together with their
underlying lands and their water column; but do not include associated wetlands
and other shorelands shoreward of the ordinary high water mark.
Management Policies: Development within Aquatic Areas shall be consistent with
the following:
» Allowed uses are those within the adjacent upland shoreline overlay, limited to
water-dependent use or public access.
• New uses and over-water structures are allowed only for water-dependent uses,
single-family residences, public access, or ecological restoration and only when
no net loss of ecological functions will result.
Exhibit A-9
Ordinance 5633
• The size of new over-water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary
to support the structure's intended use. In order to reduce the impacts of
shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple-
use of over-water facilities is encouraged and may be required.
• All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds shall be located and
designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts
to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and
wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.
• Shoreline uses and modifications shall be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water quality, minimize alteration of natural conditions and
processes, and result in no net loss of ecological functions
• Uses and modification of Public Aquatic Land shall incorporate public access and
ecological enhancement, except where inconsistent with the operation of water-
dependent uses.
• Fish and wildlife resource enhancement, including aquaculture related to fish
propagation are allowed and encouraged.
Goals and Policies
Shoreline Uses and Activities Policies
Objective SH-A. Provide for use of the limited water resource consistent with the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act by providing a preference for water-oriented
uses.
Objective SH-B. Provide that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program ensure that new uses, development, and redevelopment
within the shoreline jurisdiction do not cause a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
Objective SH-C. Ensure that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program are consistent with the land use vision of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy SH-1. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned
for:
1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be
evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance
the natural functions of shorelines, including reserving appropriate
areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control
pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public
health.
3. Provide for the following priority in shoreline use and modification of
the shoreline:
(a) Water-dependent and associated water-related uses are the
highest priority for shorelines unless protection of the existing
natural resource values of such areas precludes such uses.
Exhibit A -10
Ordinance 5633
(b) Water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible
with ecological protection and restoration objectives,
provided that adequate area is reserved for future water-
dependent and water-related uses.
(c) Multiple use developments may be allowed if they include and
support water-oriented uses and contribute to the objectives
of the act including ecological protection and restoration
and/or public access.
(d) Limit non-water-oriented uses to those locations where access
to the water is not provided or where the non-water-oriented
uses contribute to the objectives of the Act, including
ecological protection and restoration and/or public access.
(e) Preserve navigational qualities, and the infrastructure that
supports navigation, to support water-oriented use.
4. Recognize existing single-family residential uses and neighborhood
character and ensure that existing uses, new uses, and alteration of
facilities:
(a) Do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(b) Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas.
(c) Are provided with adequate public services including water,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater management.
5. Future shoreline subdivision, multi-family developments, and planned
urban developments of more than four units should provide public
benefits, including ecological protection and restoration, and/or
public or community access.
6. New residential developments should provide open space areas at or
near the shoreline through clustering of dwellings.
Policy SH -2. Aesthetic considerations should be integrated with new development,
redevelopment of existing facilities, or for general enhancement of shoreline
areas and should include:
1. Identification and preservation of areas with scenic vistas and areas
where the shoreline has high aesthetic value as seen from both
upland areas, areas across the water, and recreational and other uses
on the water.
2. Appropriate regulations and criteria should ensure that development
provides designs that contribute to the aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline for a substantial number of people and provide the public
with the ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and view
the water and shoreline.
3. Regulations and criteria for building siting, maximum height, setbacks,
screening, architectural controls, sign regulations, designation of view
corridors, and other provisions should ensure that development
minimizes adverse impacts on views of the water from public
Exhibit A -11
Ordinance 5633
property or views enjoyed by a substantial number of residences.
Policy SH-3. All shoreline policies, regulations, and development shall recognize and
protect private rights consistent with the public interest and, to the extent
feasible, shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy
of adjacent property owners. Shoreline uses and activities should be
discouraged if they would cause significant noise or odor or unsafe
conditions that would impede the achievement of shoreline use preferences
on the site or on adjacent or abutting sites.
Conservation Policies
Objective SH-D. The resources and amenities of all shorelines and the ecological processes
and functions they provide, such as wetlands, upland and aquatic
vegetation, fish and wildlife species and habitats, as well as scenic vistas and
aesthetics should be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by
present and future generations. Natural shorelines are dynamic with
interdependent geologic and biological relationships. Alteration of this
dynamic system has substantial adverse impacts on geologic and hydraulic
mechanisms important to the function of the water body and can disrupt
elements of the food chain.
Policy SH-4. When necessary, Shoreline modifications should emulate and allow natural
shoreline functions to the extent feasible and where needed utilize
bioengineering or other methods with the least impact on ecological
functions.
Policy SH-5. Native shoreline vegetation should be conserved to maintain shoreline
ecological functions and mitigate the direct, indirect and/or cumulative
impacts of shoreline development, wherever feasible. Important functions of
shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:
• Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by
salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
• Regulating microclimate in riparian and nearshore areas.
• Providing organic inputs necessary for aquatic life, including providing
food in the form of various insects and other benthic macro
invertebrates.
• Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and reducing
the occurrence/severity of landslides.
• Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment by minimizing
erosion, aiding infiltration, and retaining runoff.
» Improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of
nutrients and pollutants.
« Providing a source of large woody debris to moderate flows, create
Exhibit A-12
Ordinance 5633
hydraulic roughness, form pools, and increase aquatic diversity for
salmonids and other species.
• Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and
migration corridors.
Policy SH-6. Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and non-
regulatory means that may include regulation of development within the
shoreline jurisdiction, ecologically sound design, and restoration programs,
including:
1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to
permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable
forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs.
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected,
improved and, when feasible, increased to the fullest extent possible
to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed salmon stocks
and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks.
3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible,
increased.
4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open
space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for
education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if
necessary, for the conservation of these areas.
Policy SH-7. Existing and future activities on all Shorelines of the State regulated by the
City of Renton should be designed to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions.
Policy SH-8. The City of Renton should work with other responsible government agencies
to assure that surface water management in all drainage basins is considered
an integral part of shoreline planning.
1. Soil erosion and sedimentation that adversely affect any shoreline
within the City of Renton should be prevented or controlled.
2. The contamination of existing water courses should be prevented or
controlled.
Policy SH-9 Shoreline stabilization should be developed in a coordinated manner among
affected property owners and public agencies for a whole drift sector (net
shore-drift cell) or reach where feasible, particularly those that cross
jurisdictional boundaries, to address ecological and geo-hydraulic processes,
sediment conveyance and beach management issues. Where erosion
threatens existing development, a comprehensive program for shoreline
management should be established.
Policy SH-10. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value
Exhibit A -13
Ordinance 5633
should be identified and protected.
1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site
identification, preservation, and protection.
2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from
intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined.
Policy SH-11. Critical areas in the shoreline should be managed to achieve the planning
objectives of the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and
ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory provisions for critical areas should
protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. In
protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City should
integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including
the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development
regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.
Policy SH-12. The City shall implement the Restoration Plan provided as an adjunct to The
Shoreline Master Program in coordination with other watershed
management agencies and groups, and shall manage public lands and may
acquire key properties and provide for off-site mitigation on city or other
public or private sites.
Policy SH-13. Preservation of natural shoreline areas can best be ensured through public or
non-profit ownership and management. Therefore, where private
development is proposed in areas so designated, the City should require
dedication as necessary.
Policy SH-14. Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that
prevents or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological
condition does not become worse than the current condition. This means
ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development
and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in
so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
(RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that should be protected
include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support,
and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be
protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion
and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment
delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic
matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel
formation/maintenance.
Economic Policies
Objective SH-E. Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be recognized
Exhibit A -14
Ordinance 5633
and economic uses or activities that are water-oriented should be
encouraged and supported.
Policy SH-15. Shoreline uses should be integrated with the land use vision of the
Comprehensive Plan. Harbor areas in Renton do not have reasonable
commercial accessibility and necessary support facilities such as
transportation and utilities to warrant reservation for commercial ports and
related uses, but may support other water-dependent uses such as a marina
or passenger ferry service. Water-oriented uses should be encouraged in
multiple use development to provide opportunities for substantial numbers
of people to enjoy the shorelines. Multiple uses should prove a significant
public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives
such as providing ecological restoration and/or public access to and along the
water's edge.
Policy SH-16. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline to achieve
the use and other goals of the Act and The Shoreline Master Program,
including:
1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion
of their development along the shoreline.
2. New over-water structures should be limited to water-dependent use
and the length, width, and height of over-water structures should be
limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions.
3. Shoreline developments should be designed to maintain or enhance
aesthetic values and scenic views.
Policy SH-17. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels
may be allowed in appropriate locations within residential, commercial, and
other areas, provided they are located and designed to result in no net loss
of ecological functions.
1. Shared moorage is encouraged over individual single family docks.
2. Commercial docks and marinas should meet all health standards.
Marinas and other economic activities should be required to contain
and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating
activities.
3. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other
vessels should be developed in size and location when it would not
impair unique or fragile areas, or impact federal or state-listed
species.
Policy SH-18. All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of
ecological functions during construction and operation.
Policy SH-19. Festivals and temporary uses providing public benefits such as recreation or
Exhibit A -15
Ordinance 5633
public access, and which are compatible with ecological functions, including
water quality, water flow, habitat, or unique and fragile areas, may be
permitted with appropriate review and conditions.
Public Access Policies
Objective SH-F. Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the
natural amenities.
Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the
shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and
visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction
with the following policies.
Policy SH-21. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout
publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's
edge may be restricted to protect shoreline ecological values. Public access
shall be provided over all public aquatic lands leased for private activity,
consistent with compatibility with water-dependent uses.
Policy SH-22. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property
and may be acquired by easement or other means over intervening private
property.
Policy SH-23. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial,
and industrial developments that provide physical and visual
public/community access along the water's edge should be guided by the
policy provided in Policy SH-26 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach.
Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline
ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible
with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural
processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to
which public access is provided, including trail systems.
Policy SH-25. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing commercial,
industrial, multi-family planned unit developments, or subdivisions, and
public facilities, public/community access to and along the water's edge
should be provided if physically feasible.
Policy SH-26. Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided.
Policy SH-27. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking
Exhibit A -16
Ordinance 5633
should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way
and may be required on private development.
Policy SH-28. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle
paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than
roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable.
Policy SH-29. Physical or visual access to shorelines should be required as a condition of
approval for open space tax designations pursuant to RCW 84.34.
Policy SH-30. Development and management of public access should recognize the need to
address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should
recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just
compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for
public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall be
provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with
the public.
Exhibit A -17
Ordinance 5633
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach
The following table outlines the policy objectives for maintaining and improving public access within the shoreline. Application of
public access objectives should be considered along with other objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, such as ecological
restoration and priority uses.
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Reach A
From BeUevue city
limits to Renton city
limits
This developed primarily single-family area currently provides no public
access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the
residential lots; however, views may be limited by topography and
vegetation. Access to the water should be pursued at an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way, including parcels used for utilities and
potential acquisition of parcels, with emphasis on parcels that are not
currently developed because they do not currently have roadway access.
Lake Washington
Reach B
From the city limits to
the Seahawks training
facility
This is primarily a single-family area with one multi-family development
immediately south of the Seahawks Training Center. There is currently no
public access. There is a public trail along 1-405, but it does not have views
of the water. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely, but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the residential
lots (however, views may be limited by topography and vegetation) and
potential acquisition of opportunities for public access to the water.
Lake Washington
Reach C
From the Seattle
Seahawks
headquarters and
This reach includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training facility to the north and the Barbee Mill site to
the south. The Quendall Terminals parcel between the Seahawks and
Exhibit A -18
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
training facility
through the former
Barbee Mill site.
Barbee Mill sites is a Superfund site contaminated with coal tar and
creosote. There is public access along a portion of the shoreline at the
Seahawks site and adjacent to May Creek at the Barbee Mill site. Public
harbor lands are along about a third of the subdivision water frontage. The
potential for provision of public access from new development will occur
after cleanup of the Superfund site with multi-use development that
should offer shoreline access across the entire property, consistent with
vegetation conservation. Provision of public access from future
redevelopment of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site is possible under the
existing zoning, which allows higher intensity use and provides an
opportunity for continuous public access parallel to the shoreline. Public
access should be provided to shared or commercial docks. Public agency
actions to improve public access should include visual access from a future
trail along the railroad (views may be limited to the northerly and
southerly portion of the reach because of distance to the water and
potential blockage by intervening buildings); enhancement of the May
Creek trail to public streets; access on public aquatic lands; and potential
acquisition of public access to the water.
Lake Washington
Reach D
From May Creek to
Mountain View
Avenue
This reach is a single-family area with no public access except Kennydale
Beach Park. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and
bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and
possible public acquisition of access to the water including an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to the water; and potential
public right of way and potential public acquisition of selected parcels,
including undeveloped parcels with development constraints.
Lake Washington From Mountain View This reach is a single-family area with no existing public access. The
Exhibit A -19
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Reach E Avenue to Gene
Coulon Park
potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include visual access from public trail
development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and bicycle access
on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and possible public
acquisition of access to the water including an existing undeveloped
railroad right of way adjacent to the water; possible public street ends;
and potential public acquisition of selected parcels.
Lake Washington
Reach F
The less developed
northerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park and a
variety of primarily passive recreational facilities, a fishing pier, and a
moorage dock. Public access is one element of park functions that should
be continued and incorporated in future plans and balanced with goals for
providing recreation and improving ecologic functions. Other public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way, and pedestrian
and bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard including addition of
public viewing areas.
Lake Washington
Reach G
The more developed
southerly portion of
Gene Coulon Park
Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park
together with a variety of passive and active recreational facilities, a boat
launch, over-water facilities, and concession facilities. Public access is one
element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
future plans, as well as balanced with goals for providing recreation and
improving ecologic functions.
Lake Washington
Reach H
Southport multiple
use development
Public access is currently provided along the waterfront and should
continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the remainder
of the property. The design should include supporting water-oriented uses
and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Lake Washington
Reach 1
Boeing Plant and to
the Cedar River
This reach is about one-third state-owned aquatic lands designated as
Harbor Area and managed by the Washington State Department of
Exhibit A - 20
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Natural Resources (DNR) and two-thirds is the Boeing Company's site.
Landward of the inner harbor line, ownership is entirely the Renton Boeing
Plant. Public access in this area includes the Cedar River Boathouse located
on pilings in Lake Washington and accessed from the west from the Cedar
River Trail. The boathouse includes a public fishing area and provides
canoe and kayak rentals, classes, and guided trips. Public access is
currently not feasible on the three acres of state owned aquatic lands
managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped public
access should be provided, balanced with goals for ecological restoration.
Public agency actions to improve public access should include a waterfront
trail, which would connect the public access at the Southport development
to the Cedar River Trail. This action should be implemented when
environmental and security issues can be resolved, as well as public access
to public lands, balanced with the goals of preserving ecological functions.
Lake Washington
Reach J
Renton Municipal
Airport
Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the
Will Rogers, Wiley Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be
maintained if the goal of public access is not in conflict with the
aeronautical use of the property. Public agency actions to improve public
access should include enhancing opportunities for the public to approach
the water's edge from the existing lawn area. Public access may
necessarily be limited by safety and security limitation inherent in the
primary use of the property for aeronautical purposes.
Lake Washington
Reach K
From the Renton
Municipal Airport to
the Seattle city limits
This reach is predominantly single-family area with no existing public
access. Public visual access is provided from Rainier Avenue. The potential
for provision of public access from new development is likely limited to
future redevelopment of a small mobile home park in the easterly portion
of this reach and from redevelopment of existing multi-family uses. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Rainier Avenue as well as enhanced pedestrian facilities or
view points. This effort may include acquisition of several undeveloped
Exhibit A - 21
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
parcels to provide access to the water's edge, consistent with goals for
preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
May Creek
May Creek A
From the mouth of the
creek to Lake
Washington Boulevard
This reach is bounded by open space dedicated as part of a subdivision
and includes public access provided by a trail along the creek. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Lake Washington Boulevard including enhanced pedestrian
facilities or view points, improved connections of the May Creek trail to
public streets, and to the potential trail to the east across or under the
railroad right of way and Lake Washington Boulevard.
May Creek B
From Lake
Washington Boulevard
to 1-405
There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of re-
development, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the
water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include
provisions to cross 1-405 to connect with trail systems to the east.
May Creek C
From 1-405 to NE 36th
Street
This reach includes discontinuous public ownership with some private
ownership. At the time of development of private lands, public access
should be provided from a trail parallel to the water together with public
agency actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development
should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of
ecological functions.
May Creek D
From NE 36th Street
to the city limits
This reach is largely King County May Creek Park. Public access is informal
and discontinuous. There are some private holdings along the creek. At
the time of development of private lands, public access should be
provided from a trail parallel to the water coordinated with public agency
actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development should be
set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
Exhibit A - 22
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A
Mouth to Logan
Avenue
A public trail is provided on the east side of the river in the Cedar River
Park. No public access is provided on the west side of the river adjacent to
the municipal airport. Public physical access from a trail parallel to the
water should be provided if the Renton Municipal Airport redevelops in
the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
Cedar River B
Logan Avenue to 1-405
bridges
A public trail is provided on the north side of the river and a variety of
public access is provided on the south side, including small city parks.
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public
lands adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not
separated by public streets should provide active open space and other
facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to
relocate further from the water's edge to allow revegetation should be
considered in the future as part of public park and river maintenance
plans.
Cedar River C
1-405 to theSR 169 A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. Public access
is provided at a public park on the north side immediately east of 1-405.
Public and/or community access along the waterfront should be provided
as private lands on the north side of the river redevelop, considered along
with the goal of restoration of ecological functions. The single-family
residential area on the north side of the river provides no public access.
The potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include additional interpretive trails and trail
linkages through public lands on the south side of the river, if consistent
with ecological functions and public acquisition of access to the water in
existing single-family areas, where appropriate.
Exhibit A - 23
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Cedar River D
SR 169 to UGA
boundary
A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. It is generally
at a distance from the water's edge. Most of this reach is under public
ownership or dedicated open space. The primary goal for management of
this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional public access to
the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions.
The small residential area at the east end of the UGA provides no public
access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual
access from the existing trail and possible public acquisition of access to
the water.
GREEN RIVER
Green River
Reach A
The Green/Black River
below the pump
station
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system
to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
Black/Springbrook A
From the City Limits to
Grady Way
The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green
River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails are
Exhibit A - 24
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur
only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on
the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and
should be retained and possibly enhanced.
Springbrook B
From Grady Way to
SW 16th Street
A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under 1-405.
Enhancement should be implemented as part of future highway
improvements or other public agency actions.
Springbrook C
From SW 16th Street
to the City Limits
A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing
Longacres Office Park and extends from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale.
Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking lot
of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this
area, a continuous trail system connecting to the continuous system to the
south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
There is no trail system a|ong the stream from SW 19th Street to the
approximate alignment of SE 23rd Street. A continuous trail system is
provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through the
Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. If future development occurs in the
area of the missing trail link, a trail system connecting to the continuous
system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of
ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public
actions should include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which
may include interim trails or routing on public streets and sidewalks. In
the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor
and adjacent lands, relocation of the trail farther from the stream should
be considered with controlled access to the water's edge.
Lake Desire
A trail system is present in public open space in Darks around the lake but there is no trail system adjacent to the lake.
Lake Desire
Entire Lake Public access is provided by a WDFW boat launch. There is currently no
formal public access to the water at the natural area at the south end of
Exhibit A - 25
Ordinance 5633
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
the lake, nor the County-designated natural area at the north end of the
lake. Interpretive access should be implemented in a manner consistent
with ecological values. Existing single-family residential development
provides no public access. The potential for provision of public access
from new development is low because further subdivision and non-single
family use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs.
Public agency actions to improve public access should include public
acquisition of access to the water where appropriate. Access for
interpretive purposes may be an element of public acquisition of wetlands.
Exhibit A - 26
Ordinance 5633
Recreation Policies
Objective SH-G. Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public should be
encouraged to the extent that the use facilitates the public's ability to reach, touch, and enjoy
the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline.
Policy SH-32. Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged.
1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved in existing parks
and new development, substantial alteration of existing non-single
family development, and intensification of existing uses where
consistent with maintaining ecological functions.
2. A balanced choice of public recreational opportunities should be
provided on Lake Washington as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance
that recognizes and protects the interest of all people of the state as
well as Renton residents. Recreation use includes enjoyment and use
of the water from boating and other activities. Shoreline park and
recreation areas should be increased in size and number and
managed for multiple uses including shoreline recreation and
preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed at locations
where physical and ecological conditions are appropriate.
4. Both passive and active recreational areas should be provided.
Policy SH-33. Recreational boating and fishing should be supported, maintained, and
increased.
Policy SH-34. Public agencies, non-profit groups, and private parties should use
cooperative and innovative techniques to increase and diversify recreational
opportunities including incorporation in development as well as public
purchase of shoreland. Public agencies should establish the intent to acquire
lands by incorporation of such policies in their plans and declaring public
intent.
Policy SH-35. Public land, including city parks and public aquatic lands, should be managed
to provide a balance of public recreation, public access to the water, and
protection and enhancement of ecological functions.
Policy SH-36. Subject to policies providing for no net loss of ecological functions as well as
local, state, and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to
foster recreational aspects.
Policy SH-37. Provision of recreation facilities and use shall be consistent with growth
projections and level-of-service standards established by the comprehensive
plan.
Exhibit A - 27
Ordinance 5633
Circulation Policies
Objective SH-H. Minimize the impacts of motor vehicular traffic and encourage non-
motorized traffic within the shorelines as part of achieving no net loss.
Policy SH-38. Roadways within shorelines should be scenic boulevards, where possible, to
enhance the scenic views of the shoreline and provide opportunities for
public visual access to the shoreline. Existing arterials on the shoreline should
incorporate substantial plantings of street trees or other landscaping and
emphasize enjoyment of the shoreline.
Policy SH-39. Viewpoints, parking, trails and similar improvements should be considered
for transportation system projects in shoreline areas. Bridge abutments
should incorporate stairs or trails to reach streams where appropriate.
Policy SH-40. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline
recreation areas.
Policy SH-41. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance,
operation and security, should be developed.
1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by
pedestrian and bicycle pathways.
2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new
or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines.
3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in
publicly financed transportation systems or rights of way, consistent
with public interest and safety.
4. Public access provided in private development should be linked to
public pathways.
5. Public access and non-motorized access to shorelines should be
considered when rights of way are being vacated or abandoned.
Policy SH-42 Rail lines within the shoreline should provide opportunities for public access
and circulation:
1. The rail line along the east shore of Lake Washington should be
reserved for use as a public trail if rail use ceases. If rail use
continues, joint trail and rail use should be explored.
2. Rail lines adjacent to the Green River should provide means for
public access across the rail lines to access shorelines and public
trails where this can be accomplished safely through bridges or
undercrossings.
Policy SH-43 Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the
shoreline:
1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of
Exhibit A - 28
Ordinance 5633
non-motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and
Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the
Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for
low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline.
2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links
together shoreline public access into an interconnected network
including active and passive parks, schools, public and private
open space, native vegetation easements with public access,
utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities.
3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with
upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system
that provides non-motorized access throughout the City.
4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets
should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along
shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River,
the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River.
Policy SH-44. Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access
standards and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious
surfaces, where feasible, and managing surface water runoff to achieve
appropriate water quality.
Policy SH-45. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be encouraged
as they relate to water-dependent uses and should be limited to commercial
and industrial areas.
Shoreline Historical/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources and Activities Policies
Objective SH-I. Provide for protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having
archaeological, historical, cultural, scientific, or educational value.
Policy SH-46. Sites with archaeological, historical, cultural, and scientific or educational
value should be identified and protected or conserved in collaboration with
appropriate tribal, state, federal, and local governments as well as private
parties.
Policy SH-47. Such features may be integrated with other shoreline uses if appropriate to
the character of the resource.
Policy SH-48. Include programs and interpretive areas in recreational facilities in or near
identified shoreline areas with historical, cultural, educational, and scientific
value.
Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement Policies
Objective SH-J. Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired
Exhibit A - 29
Ordinance 5633
ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of
public and private programs and actions. This Master Program includes a
restoration element that identifies restoration opportunities and facilitates
appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal of
this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions.
Policy SH-49. A cooperative restoration program among local, state, and federal public
agencies; tribes; non-profit organizations; and landowners should be
developed to address shorelines with impaired ecological functions.
Policy SH-50. The restoration plan incorporated by reference into The Shoreline Master
Program is based on:
1. Identification of degraded areas, areas of impaired ecological
functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration.
2. Establishment of overall goals and priorities for restoration of
degraded areas and impaired ecological functions.
3. Identification of existing and ongoing projects and programs that are
being implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented,
which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals.
4. Identification of additional projects and programs needed to achieve
restoration goals.
5. Identification of prospective funding sources for those projects and
programs.
6. Identification of timelines and benchmarks for implementing
restoration projects and programs.
7. Development of strategies to ensure that restoration projects and
programs will be implemented according to plans, periodically
reviewed for effectiveness, and adjusted to meet overall restoration
goals.
Exhibit A - 30
Ordinance 5633
LW-A `" . Newcastle Wa Q _.-_-._
Exhibit B SE 72nd$( m \ / `� \ r e I I Q V u -j
rvi � c e r Island �.�/ , i \ r,•�-`�- -�
Lw=C l i
rn \ ?Pe Area enlarged -t -� St 11 La ren J_
\ erg at bottom I MCBI , Newcastle `\
0y center-right cornerMG-A' I I I
LW-D� MC-C..
,, .:-.c.:.!\, ;
j __
�, ® MCrD.tom i
F- ..p I
' FJ;D(II c' ..SF9
fT LW=E. -vs'h
�`� �'' Lake Washington N,•� JE r',8t A-- - - .-..,-._•V sy SEM
Seattle aY
0 l'111411-14-H,
��\ LW 4F � �! J �o�� A ' J � f'1 til --P ,P. -a' a uo -
-'1 S Bangor St �•0.._ , ;a \ t ..b, i 1 4 11L� -
I - -- , ! i _ w N Ir
_ LW K LW-G �(� E•mitinj lt" •
5_ 11 \.' 1-0-1- 1 - Jrt71 - ' r '
ej- L •)) -I , --um • I 5 1, VA a\\.f.in_,,,,,,- „-k,,,,, , ,..,c--# , -, , I,.. ,k--
•(• , . N (c--''"''' ''`IA L, 7- I ''''''' \l' A fi,• -..k.41- , m -- ---'•.I:•ii H �il l ° � � III
. � -- ��+� ,.
NM
�+y ;Nri PI j ii
v \\ rk'..�1�.r BiZS `� aA�� ��' p7e alte a .
r
ni i j
Area enl'r ed .r W
g �' So1aa9. =y •,R-D 1 `1
at b'tto e f ,• II ''~� I ,
R-A a i. m a 4 I! f Q�9 t} �` fi J
left c r z. SC B_ I v---1��i 1� w ,,$. i y;� r.► • '/ �) TT or2 ��r----
ram, ,11�_ r,t,l, 4jt �) - �� r
ti, la uthcente< ;' h„ _mill
®' \ ti 114
l n'' `j _ �i`�, :_ �� °j� ♦ R�D�� .p E Rent
— I 1 '�' / \t a�a ) . • ._., 1.., ,,, I'' 71 x8,s'rtr a.',¢. l
�c. �k ._,.i :f , \ 11 H ., .a a may.• --vc-- _)
•
F 1' `� k a ln, 84 L� °�Y g �. �. ___..I IC, o ep
1._..1 /1
I Jill
, ...
,,...,_,1,0 ,
7,7,*
L} 3 ntlt �'i v e' - � . ._ f I CJ U I � ..JI '3 Lr b �' tu`0►�'
l
-,", '3, r,. ' / it::::::::.;::::.
t. 'i -r_ I 1 . t 'tpyg�. _ - _
—lam -!x' __ 0 to `�`S. •,1'. �� e;
I. 0.7
� • 'r i'P' •_.IY m I , 1'. , �I!,i I '°ml� 3�d V Y� I. �' -
tr__ C I
S 1 th St . p�W �i SW 43
r bottom! 1
`I a��Fpe A e. j
/ [1,41rj I m °t is at o I
' Lrrk D girt'J - ��� U � ,4 ,I �. --', ght cornea 4
.5. , z-3-': ,Lis
_ , .
___.
( /!i,../ I.j il 0.;,,, o2,, , ,,,, ih,7i. .. _,..tr___ — i Q
Q L._.-,:, 1 al t. 192'� it �'', /�'
Q) I i+ 4 ,P 7 t S ady a of
I :,,,„,„;,'" i 44-A Osd 1, \ n \
(i.,' Kent _ r'l
•; t es d ,t}' av I \ Lake Young `oQ co
a' P eke yr , -----
SE 208th St _ \I \\\
v
413
r s \V l u '1 p I a. 'As , es / 1 .� V3 ' O
Melee I--II--� r---rJ1! L/
,.7
` t ,t7 1 ^ Fin"� 1f 000 i CO>
tP
H2 a 0�' ' -.�� a " s :
• „✓✓ - ma's
: pi
o, �� 11� d �1. _w C ,,.... j
i
� 2n� — `` D vale Rd
I II
.. 1 .7 E, ),, ././
-
illNit„., ,,,,,,,,,,,,:\, rr II ,llrxrrrr
,.. 1. P,>ra,..
.ma )'''. ' — 4 I:Fr
1,\ y
' TukwiI -- ' ,,,,/ _ rn rn i r �n : c ;/ LWP' — �l ��h
/� N 791h SI
F�,�,' e " .r. J'` f r //./ I 'V'..0 I Q
.1chra1 Data Source:City of Renton 2009.King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP.The actual extent of shoreline Renton Shoreline Environment Overlays
jurisdiction requires a site-specific evaluation to indentify the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands.
The location of the 20 cfs limit is from USGS(1998).Floodplain and floodway extent are based on FEMA mapping
and the Lower Green River Mapping Study by King County.Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing
City/regional inventories;additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the maps and some of the areas
shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria.This map makes no claim as to whether wetlands _
� y
are associated with the shoreline or not.This map should not be used as a definitive source on associated Wetlands 1.rCit Limits Shoreline Environment Designation Shoreline Jurisdiction
under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction.Such a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. , -Natural BRSC-Black River/Springbrook Creek Reaches
August ts,2011 I_--I PAA Boundary CR- Cedar River Reaches
0 0.5 1 2 4E)
•_Wetlands -Shoreline High Intensity GR- Green River Reaches
Mlles IShoreline Isolated High Intensity
r'''''''� LD- Lake Desire Reaches
1:52,000 I I Shoreline Single Family
LW- Lake Washington Reaches
Urban Conservancy
MC- May Creek Reaches
Community&Economic Development
Alex Peitsch,Administrator City of CiR,I,,
Y
Adriana Abramovich,Planning Technician 11 Urt>,Oe � ��I ( J ( { File Name:H.9CEDIPIanninglGISIGIS_projeclslshoreline_mgm�plogramVnxdst
��•� shoreline environment_designationslA_shoreline designation_t1x17 0911.rnxd
EXHIBIT C
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Final Restoration Plan
Prepared for
City of Renton
City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
This report was funded in part by a Grant from the Washington Department ofEcology
Prepared by
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
BeUevue, WA 98004-5571
T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363
www.parametrix.com
In Association With:
Adolfson Associates, Inc
Maney ARC
March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
CITATION
Parametrix. 2010.
Final Restoration Plan.
Prepared by Parametrix, BeUevue, Washington. March 2010.
Ordinance 5633
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE 1-1
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT 1-2
1.3 SHORELINE INVENTORY 1-3
1.3.1 Introduction 1-3
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction 1-3
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed 1-3
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek 1-6
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE 1-8
1.3.6 Built Environment 1-8
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2-1
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2-1
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE
PRIORITIES 2-1
2.2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives 2-2
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects 2-3
2.3 DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES 2-4
2.3.1 Lower Green River 2-4
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek 2-5
2.3.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects 2-6
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS 3-1
3.1 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON 3-1
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan 3-1
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District 3-1
3.1.3 King County Conservation District 3-3
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs 3-4
3.2 GREEN RIVER /SPRINGBROOK CREEK 3-5
3.2.1 WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan 3-5
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District 3-5
3.2.3 King Conservation District 3-6
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project 3-6
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs 3-6
3.2.6 Black River Watershed Alliance 3-6
3.2.7 Herons Forever 3-7
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS 3-7
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning 3-7
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations 3-8
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan 3-8
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan 3-9
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan
Ordinance 5633
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.3.5 Private Development 3-11
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach 3-11
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES 4-1
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS 4-1
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER 4-1
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities 4-1
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach 4-2
4.3 GREEN/SPRTNGBROOK 4-9
4.3.1 Priorities 4-9
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach 4-9
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 5-1
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 5-1
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING 5-3
6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1
7. REFERENCES 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update 1-2
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan 3-2
3- 2 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan 3-5
4- 1 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach 4-3
4- 2 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach 4-10
5- 1 Funding Opportunities 5-2
ii City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 [ 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
ACRONYMS
BRWA
DNR
DO
ERP
FCRW
KCD
LOS
LWD
KCFCZD
NPDES
RCW
RM
SMA
SMP
UGA
WAC
WDFW
WSDOT
Black River Watershed Alliance
Department of Natural Resources
dissolved oxygen
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed
King Conservation District
level of service
Large Woody Debris
King County Food Control Zone District
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Revised Code of Washington
River Mile
Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Management Plan
Urban Growth Areas
Washington Administrative Code
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of Transportation
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan iii
Ordinance 5633
I
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE
The City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to activities and uses within
its shoreline zone. Activities which produce adverse impacts on shoreline ecological
functions must have mitigation for those impacts to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. By law, development within the shoreline zone is not required to improve the
affected shoreline beyond the baseline condition at the time the activity takes place. How
then can shoreline ecological functions be improved over time in areas where the baseline
condition is marginally, or even severely, degraded?
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) Washington Administrative Code (WAC) of the SMP Guidelines
says:
Master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify
existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and
identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement
to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should
make real and meaningful use of established or funded non-regulatory policies and
programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should
appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non-
regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any
restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations
and mitigation standards.
However, degraded shorelines are not exclusively a result of pre-SMP activities, but also of
unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines also require that "Local
master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate
will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline" (173-26-186(8)(b)(ii)
WAC). While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the SMP
should hold that permit exempt developments must still comply with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) or the local SMP. Because the shoreline environment is also
affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program's jurisdiction
(e.g., shoreline areas upstream of the City and otherwise outside of City limits), assembly of
interlocal agreements, forums, programs, and policies can be essential for understanding how
the City fits into the larger watershed framework. Watershed-wide goals and objectives are
critical for the improvement of highly interconnected regional environments.
As indicated by the Guidelines, the following discussion provides a summary of existing or
baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration objectives both regionally and locally,
evaluates ongoing programs and restoration projects, and provides potential restoration
opportunities within the City of Renton. Lastly, implementation of restoration goals and
monitoring development of ecological functions over time will allow the City's Restoration
Plan to meet SMP Guidelines.
This Restoration Plan is also intended to support grant funding of restoration projects by the
City and/or other non-governmental organizations as well as provide the interested public
with contact information for organizations working with the City to enhance the environment.
The difference between the role of regulatory and non-regulatory programs in achieving no
net loss is illustrated in conceptual form in Figure 1-1, below. Generally speaking,
regulations that address development projects are designed to achieve no net loss. However,
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 1-1
Ordinance 5633
there are exceptions to this. For example, non-water-dependent uses are required to provide
public benefit in the form of public access and/or ecological restoration as addressed in WAC
173-26-241(3)(d). In general, however, restoration activities undertaken by public, private,
and non-profit organizations in accordance with this plan, and other programs are expected to
provide the primary source of improvements to ecological functions.
SMP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function
Higher
o
IS
o
*&
S
o
Lower
No Net Loss- Cwiem Baseline
On-QDlng degradation
from existing
d*v«l9pm*nt
Unavoidable Impacts
from new
development
ShureUfw violalicns
SMP Restoration
Plan
Voluntary tt storatton
opportunities
Off-site mitigation
opportunities
Offsetting mWgstlen
Avoid and Mitigate
Impacts
Key: r {J 1 irtif
SMP Update
•IIKC-'UOIVt
Cll.ll.l. <H||z,iM.||
En»'ironineiitDe^irinnji.-in
Utwio|)Rici)TPrjii<:lA5 &
Stimdaitl*.
• Rpr.niiimniKted Actions
ojfj'ile SMA du'.nonlv
• Compliance StMteyy
• dun native Imparls
Ariiilysii
• Rc^llFfilll.HiPl.MI
Source: Washington Department of Ecology
Figure 1-1. Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT
City of Renton is located within the Lake Washington/Cedar River (Water Resource
Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) and the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 9) watersheds.
WRIA 8 encompasses 692 square miles (Kerwin 2001) and two major subbasins, the
Sammamish River and the Cedar River, both of which flow into Lake Washington. WRIA 8
boundaries follow topographic divides between WRIA 7 (Snohomish River) to the north and
east, and WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish Rivers) and Puget Sound to the south and west (Kerwin
2001). The majority (approximately 86 percent) of WRIA 8 is in the Puget Lowlands
physiographic region. The upper Sammamish drainage lies in the Cascade foothills, while the
upper Cedar River drainage extends through the foothills into the Cascade Mountains. WRIA
8 has a population of about 1.5 million people, the most of any WRIA in the state.
WRIA 9 contains the Green River and its tributaries, including the Duwamish
waterway/estuary, and nearby tributaries draining directly to Puget Sound. WRIA 9 is bound
topographically by WRIA 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) to the north and WRIA 10
(Puyallup River) to the south. The Green River watershed is 462 square miles, and the river
1 -2 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
itself stretches 93 miles from its source in the Cascade Mountains through the Cascade
foothills and Puget Lowlands before emptying into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The
population of WRIA 9 is approximately 565,000.
The City accounts for less than three percent of the geographical area and its population
(80,708) is less than a half of one percent of the population of about two million within
WRIAs 8 and 9. The City is also located near the lower end of both WRIAs. Hence,
management actions taken within the City limits have a limited effect on overall watershed
conditions. However, actions taken to manage reach-scale processes, such as riparian and
floodplain functions, could have a larger effect on specific ecological processes and
functions, particularly rearing functions of anadromous fish.
The City also lies in the lower portion of May Creek and Springbrook Creek but accounts for
a much larger proportion of the total watershed area. As such, management actions for these
shorelines conducted within the City may have a more substantial effect on overall watershed
conditions and shoreline ecological functions.
1.3 SHORELINE INVENTORY
1.3.1 Introduction
The Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report as part of the City of Renton's SMP will
facilitate the City of Renton's compliance with the State of Washington's SMA and updated
SMP Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and biological conditions in the
shoreline area within City limits, including recommendations for restoration of ecological
functions where they are degraded. A brief summary of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Report relevant to the Restoration Plan is summarized below.
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
The City's jurisdiction includes area in both WRIAs, the Green/Duwamish Watershed or
WRIA 9 and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed or WRIA 8. For
organizational purposes, shorelines in WRIAs 8 and 9 will be broken into two sections for
analysis within this Restoration Plan. In WRIA 8, significant shorelines include Lake
Washington, Cedar River, and May Creek titled as Cedar River/Lake Washington. In WRIA
9, significant shorelines include Green River and Springbrook Creek titled as Green
River/Springbrook Creek.
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of
the state plus their associated "shorelands." Shorelands are defined as:
Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the
provisions of this chapter...Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-
hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its master program as long as such portion
includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two
hundred feet therefrom. (RCW 90.58.030)
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed
The Lake Washington basin covers most of the 692 square miles contained in WRIA 8 and is
populated with approximately 1.4 million people (Kerwin 2001). The City lies at the south
end of Lake Washington and contains approximately 21 square miles, or three percent, of the
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 1-3
Ordinance 5633
total watershed and less than one-half percent of the total watershed population. Lake
Washington has 80 miles of shoreline, about six of which are within the Renton planning
area, or about eight percent.
The Cedar River Watershed drains an area of 191 square miles, 125 square miles of which lie
upstream of the City of Seattle drinking water diversion. The upper watershed is mostly
second growth forest, but 16 percent of it is climax, old-growth forest. Most impervious
surface in the watershed occurs in its lower, urbanized portions. The Lower Cedar River
basin is primarily (90 percent) within the jurisdictional boundary of King County. The
remaining jurisdictional area is within the cities of Renton (7.8 percent), Maple Valley (2.1
percent), and Kent (0.8 percent; King County 2009).
The May Creek watershed is about 8,960 acres in Renton, Newcastle, and unincorporated
King County, and includes 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands. The portion of the Creek in Renton includes 2.3 stream miles of shoreline
planning area partitioned into four reaches. The Creek is an important salmonid stream and
contains a substantial amount of protected shoreline.
1.3.3.1 Land Use
Land use areas within this section include the Lake Washington basin, Cedar River, and May
Creek Watersheds.
According to King County Assessor's (2008) parcel data, City land-use along the Lake's
shoreline is a mix of residential, industrial, parks, recreation and open space, and vacant areas
with vacant land and low-density residential development representing the dominant land
uses.
Thirteen of the 187 City parcels along the Lake's shoreline are either unmodified or restored
including one single-family residential property on Reach E and Gene Coulon Park on
Reaches F and G. Gene Coulon Park contains a combination of restored shoreline, vegetated
shoreline, and some armored shoreline. Kennydale Beach Park (Reach D) contains a
combination of modified and natural shoreline. The remaining 174 City parcels contain some
level of "hard" armoring. This includes major commercial/industrial parcels (e.g., the Renton
Boeing Plant) and private residential properties with hard armoring, moderate armoring,
natural shoreline, or a combination thereof. Parcels that are completely armored with concrete
bulkheads, rocks, or similar structures comprise 67 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline.
The majority of these parcels occur in Reaches D, E, and K, which are developed for single
or single/multi-family residential use. Losses of wetland and shoreline vegetation in the Lake
is likely attributable to filling and shoreline development (Grassley 2000).
City land-use along the Cedar River shoreline is composed of a mix of residential, parks,
recreation and open space, government/institutional, roadway and undeveloped lands. As a
result of human development within and upstream the city, 64 percent of the lower Cedar
River is modified on at least one bank, a condition which, in conjunction with decreased
flows, has artificially narrowed the river's historic average width of approximately 250 feet to
110 feet. This alteration has resulted in a 56 percent reduction in water surface area,
corresponding to a loss in available instream aquatic habitat (Kerwin 2001). Channelization
and the disconnection of the Cedar River floodplain for flood control have affected storage of
water, sediment, and contaminants, simplifying instream habitat.
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of May Creek are a mix of parks, recreation and open
space, undeveloped lands, and residential. The upper, eastern portion of the basin is
characterized by less dense residential and agricultural development, and includes a
significant portion of the undeveloped parkland on Cougar Mountain. Above May Canyon,
the Creek lies in a formerly dredged, straightened channel at the center of a wide, very low-
1 -4 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
gradient valley. The lower, western portion of the basin is inside the Urban Growth Area
(UGA; primarily within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Renton and Newcastle) is fairly dense
urban residential development. About 50 percent of the basin is forested, but the amount of
urban development is increasing (Kerwin 2001).
1.3.3.2 Nearshore and Riparian Habitat
Nearshore and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline is severely altered in
nearly every reach, within the City of Renton and outside of the City limits. Residential and
commercial development, including bulkheads, docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards
have adversely modified most of the Lake Washington shoreline habitat. However, many of
these shoreline areas continue to provide shallow water habitat at the toe of bulkheads, and
some locations that do not have bulkheads. Narrow docks perpendicular to the shorelines do
not appear to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook, but the fish appear to migrate
around wider structures where they occur in shallow water (less than three feet deep).
Deeper nearshore habitats with rocky substrates and without vegetation appear to be preferred
by smallmouth and largemouth bass. These bass may also be keying in on overwater
coverage and pilings as ambush habitat. Because there is an abundance of these habitat types
in the shoreline, predation opportunities that would not exist historically are likely increasing
today (Kahler 2000).
Shallow water habitat along these shorelines provides important rearing habitat for juvenile
Chinook as they slowly migrate from the Cedar River and rear along Lake Washington's
shorelines. Those areas closest to the River are most important for this rearing function
because the smallest Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months as
they gradually move away from the river mouth. Although riparian vegetation increases the
refuge and prey production functions for this habitat, the shallow beaches support rearing
juvenile Chinook in the absence of natural riparian vegetation (Tabor 2008).
The continuing cumulative adverse effects of bulkheads and the lack of native vegetation on
near-shore processes important to a variety of aquatic species including substrate character,
interflow, shallow water temperature, and the food web may be reduced in the future by the
recent proposal by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove the sheet-pile
outfall structure and restore the nearshore as part of an aquatic restoration program (DNR
2009) and by expansion of the Cedar River delta.
The Cedar River downstream of 1-405 is an artificial channel created early in the 20th
century, and is completely constrained between levees and revetments. These reaches were
regularly dredged to prevent flooding from their completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s.
Portions of the reaches were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-1970s.
Instream habitat in these reaches is almost entirely riffle, with little habitat complexity. Land-
uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for re-connection with
a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor. Channelization and existing
land-uses also prevent significant large woody debris (LWD) from accumulating in the
channel. Reaches A and B are also very low-gradient and depositional, and the substrates
have high levels of fine sediments.
The reach between 1-405 and SR 169 has a higher degree of function than downstream
reaches although it is partially diked, leveed, and bulkheaded with extensive alternation on
the north side (right bank) from past commercial multi-family and single family development.
The south side (left bank) is almost entirely in public ownership with relatively heavy
riparian vegetation, although there are some flood control revetments on the south side. The
Maplewood residential neighborhood on the north side (right bank) immediately downstream
of SR 169 is subject to shallow flooding in a 100-year event. In addition, an active landslide
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 1-5
Ordinance 5633
scarp is located directly across the river from the neighborhood. The occurrence of a major
landslide would block all or a portion of the channel suddenly and could force river flows
across the residential area with potentially devastating results. The King County flood
management plan proposes voluntary buy-out of this area since there is no reliable means to
reduce long term landslide hazard.
The reach upstream of SR 169 is less constrained, allowing for the development of gravel
bars and a very small degree of meandering and channel migration. At present, Reach D has a
significant amount of LWD due to the landslide caused by the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001.
This includes log-jams behind the Ron Regis Park, just upstream of the Elliott Spawning
Channel. Most of the left bank of Reach C is deciduous forest, and the portion of Reach D
adjacent to the golf course and Ron Regis Park is deciduous forest. These forested areas are
generally at least 200 feet in width.
The Cedar River and May Creek delta provides a large amount of rapidly-developing, natural
shallow water habitat in Lake Washington. In the past, the mouth of the River was
periodically dredged for flood control. The City has no plans to dredge the delta in the future
for flood control (Straka 2008). However, some dredging for the Municipal Airport float
plane dock is proposed in order to restore water depths. Dredging at the mouth of May Creek
was previously performed to accommodate log storage for the Barbee Mill sawmill. The
natural processes at the delta have not yet developed any areas of sufficient elevation to
support riparian vegetation, but they have created a large amount of shallow water habitat
where young Chinook first enter the lake. Further natural expansion of the delta is likely to
eventually prove a very productive complex of shallow aquatic habitat, wetlands, and uplands
that together will provide for the transition between the river and lake environment that is
critical to a number of species, including salmon. The May Creek Basin Action Plan supports
enhancement of that delta in the policy:
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits.
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek
1.3.4.1 Shoreline Inventory
The Green River Watershed covers an area of 566 square miles, a small portion of which falls
within Renton's jurisdiction. At approximately river mile (RM) 11, the Green River passes to
the west of the City of Renton. None of the river channel lies within City limits, but some
floodway and jurisdictional shoreline as well as significant portions of tributary basins such as
the Black River/Springbrook Creek are located within City limits. Springbrook Creek is the
largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed area of about 15,763 acres
(24.6 square miles). The creek is 12 miles long including 3.5 miles within the City.
1.3.4.2 Land Use
The lower Green River Subwatershed contains a mix of agricultural, industrial, commercial,
parks/recreation/open space, roadways, and residential land uses (WRIA 9). Levees and/or
revetments have been constructed along the majority of the Green River to increase bank
strength and reduce flooding. Flows within the Green River have been significantly modified
after the construction of Howard A. Hansen Dam and installation of water diversions. These
1 -6 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
modifications have considerably reduced the severity of floods that historically covered much
of the valley bottom. Current conditions of the Lower Green River levee and revetment
system is a growing source of concern for King County and jurisdictions involved, as many
of the levees are aging and would not meet current standards for either flood conveyance or
stability.
Springbrook Creek is the largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed
area of about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles). The basin is composed of two distinct
physical settings. In the eastern half of the subbasin, rolling hills rise to elevations of about
525 feet above the valley floor. The western half of the basin is virtually flat.
All of Springbrook Creek in the City was extensively modified and straightened for
agricultural drainage in the 1920s by King County Drainage District No. 1, which owns the
Springbrook Creek right-of-way. The channel area from the Black River Pump Station,
including Forebay area up to the Oakesdale bridge crossing just upstream of Southwest 16th
Street, was improved in the 1980s and 1990s for flood control by the City in cooperation with
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service; Straka
2008).
The pump station prevents high flows in the Green River from backing up into Springbrook
Creek, reducing the risk of flooding. The pump station is a barrier to salmonids upstream and
downstream during certain seasons, and is in need of replacement to avoid obstructing fish
passage (Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
Instream habitat in the Springbrook Creek shoreline is extremely uniform and virtually
identical across reaches. The Black River Basin plan (City of Renton 1993) notes that under
present conditions the lack of suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing capacity due
to degraded water quality, especially high temperatures during warm summer months,
provides little usable fish habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). These limiting conditions
remain today. The stream is constrained and channelized throughout the shoreline. The
stream gradient is very flat, sinuosity is very low, and the stream has been almost completely
straightened in Reach C, reducing channel surface area (usable habitat) thereby limiting
habitat creation.
Reach A has been impounded by the Black River flood control structure, and much of the
reach is contained in a large pond that is prone to increased temperature and corresponding
low dissolved oxygen (DO). Temperature may present a barrier for migrating salmonids.
Impaired temperature and DO have degraded salmonid rearing and, in upstream reaches, have
inhibited incubation. The Black River Pumping Station can act as a barrier to migration of
juvenile and adult salmonids due to inadequate screening, fishway design, and operation
schedule (Kerwin and Nelson 2001). The riparian corridor in this reach is primarily forested
and more than 250-feet-wide on either bank. However, invasive reed canarygrass is also
dominant in areas, particularly on the river's left shoreline where public access and a trail
system exist.
The Black River lagoon is a large, open water and forested wetland. Another wetland
complex can be found downstream surrounding the Springbrook and Panther Creek
confluence. A wetland area has been preserved as part of the Longacres Business Park. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City implemented a joint,
multi-site wetland mitigation bank that includes 130 acres of wetland restoration,
rehabilitation, and enhancement (WSDOT 2008).
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 1-7
Ordinance 5633
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE
Lake Desire is comprised of mixed and deciduous forest interspersed with residential lots.
Along the north and southeast reaches of the lake's shoreline are natural areas; the entire
shoreline has medium-high ecological function for LWD quality.
Biological function is affected by residential development along the Lake Desire shoreline,
but significant areas of open space exist along the north and southeast lakeshore. These areas
provide important habitat and other ecological functions enhanced by their place in a larger
network of natural areas. Contiguous parks and protected areas include Lake Desire Natural
Area, McGarvey Park Open Space, and Petrovisky Park. These conditions help the Lake
Desire shoreline sustain a high level of ecological function
Lake Desire is fed by two small tributaries, one each on the western and northern shoreline
(see Map 3a). Both streams are rated in City critical areas regulations as ephemeral and non-
salmonid bearing. The northern tributary flows past a wetland just upstream of its mouth. The
northern wetland and stream delta are a unique hemlock-forested peatland, a highly sensitive
Category I wetland (Lower Cedar River #15 in the King County Wetland Inventory) that is
one of few remaining in the urbanizing Puget Sound lowlands (King Co. 1993). An area of
hydric soil to the south of the Lake may be evidence of a historical wetland. Other wetlands
may occur in the area that have not yet been identified or mapped.
No priority habitats are found within the Lake Desire shoreline, nor is the Lake accessible to
anadromous salmonids (see Map 5a). Lake Desire has historically been stocked with non-
native rainbow trout, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and largemouth bass, which all still
inhabit the Lake.
Lake Desire-Spring Lake Park serves as a wildlife corridor between the two lakes.
Contiguous natural upland areas ring Lake Desire to the east, north, and west, but residential
development along the lakeshore presents a barrier to wildlife movement to and from the
lake.
Nearshore habitat is impacted seasonally by increased phosphorus loads that cause algal
blooms. In addition, the invasive Eurasian milfoil has established itself in the Lake. Both
conditions alter natural habitat conditions and limit access to important shallow-water habitat.
1.3.6 Built Environment
1.3.6.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of Lake Desire are a mix of low density residential (59
percent) and undeveloped lands (35 percent). Existing land-use was assessed using 2008 King
County Assessor's parcel data.
Planned Land-Use
The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning land-use designations in the Lake Desire
shoreline planning area are low density residential (City of Renton 2008).
1-8 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 | 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
In response to the challenges facing the Sound, in 2007 the Legislature created the Puget
Sound Partnership to reverse Puget Sound's decline and restore it to health by 2020. This
agency replaced the Puget Sound Action Team created in 1996, to protect and restore Puget
Sound and its spectacular diversity of life now and for future generations. The Partnership has
developed the following priorities in its Action Plan:
Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain
Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost-
effective approach to ecosystem health.
Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget
Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at
an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage.
Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of the Partnership's efforts have
focused on cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient
resources have been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our
rivers, beaches, and species.
Priority D: Work together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding
are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region.
Many of the programs and laws now used to regulate or support activities in
Puget Sound were established on a piecemeal basis to address individual
problems. Strategies that will help to address problems more effectively at an
ecosystem scale include improved coordination of land use planning, water
supply, ecosystem protection, transportation, and species recovery plans. The
Action Agenda calls for the reform of environmental regulatory programs as
well as improvements to the capacity of local partners to implement actions
and compliance efforts across Puget Sound.
Priority E: Build an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management
system.
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Near-Term
Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation, Lake Washington suffers from "[a]ltered
trophic interactions (predation, competition), degradation of riparian shoreline conditions,
altered hydrology, invasive plant species, poor water quality (phosphorus, alkalinity, pH),
[and] poor sediment quality" (WRIA 8 Steering Committee 2002). The WRIA 8 Action
Agenda established four "ecosystem objectives," which are intended to guide development
and prioritization of restoration actions and strategies. The objectives are as follows:
a. "Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat characteristics
favorable to salmon.
b. Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and maintain
functional corridors linking these habitats.
March 2010 [ 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 2-1
Ordinance 5633
c. Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality refuge habitats to serve as centers
of population expansion.
d. Maintain connectivity between high-quality habitats to allow for population expansion
into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover."
2.2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives
Results from the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan as well as the Cedar River
Basin Plan supports lower Cedar River and Lake Washington basin goals and objectives.
These objectives aim to:
2.2.1.1 Lake Washington
» Increase native vegetation quality, width, and diversity in protected riparian corridors
adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration pathways for fish and
wildlife, along with food, nest sites, shade, and organic debris.
• Decrease frequency and impact of overwater and in-water structures through
minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials such as grated decking.
• Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation along lake
shorelines.
• Protect and Restore water quality within tributary streams.
• Where feasible, improve riparian health along shorelines by removing bulkheads and
using bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to improve
aquatic conditions.
• Reconnect and rehabilitate small creek mouths along lake banks as juvenile rearing
areas.
2.2.1.2 Cedar River
Flood Damage Reduction
• Modify Levees and Revetments in selected areas to reduce public maintenance costs,
restore natural flood storage and help reduce flood damage system-wide.
• Re-establish Channel Capacity of the Renton Reach to 100-year flood discharge in
order to reduce flood damages.
• Voluntary Flood Buyouts of Residences at locations along the mainstem to reduce
flood damage and danger to residents where the most hazardous flood flows occur.
• Provide Technical Assistance and Limited Financial Assistance to help floodplain
residents and responsible agencies reduce flood damages in the less hazardous areas
and improve flood emergency communications.
Aquatic Habitat
• Purchase Critical Habitat Sites as part of the King County Open Space Program.
• Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
Water Quality and Groundwater Protection
• Purchase Critical Habitat Sites at 13 mainstem and 11 tributary sites as part of the
King County Open Space Program.
2-2 City of Renton-Shoreline Master Program Update-Final Restoration Plan March2010 1553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
• Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
• Promote Forest Retention using incentives for landowners to keep their land in forest
uses such as tax relief and increased technical assistance.
• Protect Steep Ravines and Slopes of the Cedar River to prevent erosive runoff from
new development through a combination of infiltration and enhanced
retention/detention facilities.
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects
Fifteen potential projects roughly within Renton's Jurisdiction are identified in the Final Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish/ Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
The following are Conservation Plan site-specific Protection and Restoration projects for
Lake Washington and the Cedar River respectively:
C266 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
Restoration of DNR Property as part of City's Sam Chisham Trail project. Remove
a portion of flume (along lakeside), create shallow water habitat, protect existing
cove, and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along cove.
C267 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
restoration between mouth of Cedar River and Gene Coulon Park; explore options
with private property owners to remove bulkheads, restore shallow water habitat, and
riparian vegetation.
C268 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach J, Cedar River
Reach A): Explore lowering/modifying Cedar River Delta to create more shallow
water habitat, reduce bird predation for juvenile salmon by cutting trees lower.
C269 Section 1, South Lake Washington west of Cedar River Mouth (Reach K): Explore
options with homeowners to remove bulkheads, conversion of nearshore habitat to
shallow beach and restore riparian vegetation. Reduce number of docks by using
community docks.
C270 Section 1, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach K, D, B-A):
Explore opportunities to restore small creek mouths; remove bulkheads and reduce
number of docks by developing community docks throughout section 1.
C264 Section 1, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach G): Enhance
mouth of Lower John's Creek; enhance lower channel to reduce predator habitat,
restore riparian vegetation, and protect water quality and quantity from stormwater
flows.
C265 Section 1, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach F): Enhance
mouth of Kennydale Creek, remove silt, and facilitate recruitment of sand and
gravel. Protect existing shallow water delta.
C203. C204 Logan St. Bridge to 1-405 (Cedar River Reach B, RM 1-1.6): Explore options
to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river and for any needed restoration
plantings on the right bank. If redevelopment occurs in this reach of river, explore
possibility of setting back levees and restoring riparian buffer.
C206 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Riparian restoration on right bank of
industrial use area likely to be redeveloped in the near future, improve riparian
habitat via easement purchase for buffer and removing bank hardening.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 2-3
Ordinance 5633
C207 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): There is multifamily residential use
on the right bank of the river; explore opportunities to remove impervious surface
area and bank hardening on site, restore riparian buffer.
C208 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Maplewood neighborhood flood
buyouts and floodplain restoration, explore options to restore floodplain.
C211 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): The Cedar River
Basin Plan includes a potential project to restore a side channel on the right bank of
the river on property owned by Maplewood Height Home Owners Association and
the City across from the golf course and downstream the landslide. Channel
restoration should include a flow-through channel reconnected to the Cedar at upper
end for juvenile Chinook benefit.
C212 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): Conifer under-
planting within reach, particularly in Ron Regis Park near slide area.
C213, C214 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.7): Protect
existing riparian habitat and extensive LWD in reach. Explore using LWD and levee
setback to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to public lands associated
with Ron Regis Park while protecting natural habitat forming processes. Project
study should include lower Madsen Creek.
2.3 DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to land use changes which
have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon habitat, major engineering changes to
shoreline environments, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and
industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides
(WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2002). The WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda established
three high priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery:
• "Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River watershed
and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
• Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves several
types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat, restoring degraded
habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water quality and flows.
« Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles) to and
from the Upper Green River subwatershed."
2.3.1 Lower Green River
The following habitat management strategies for the Lower Green River subwatershed,
including Renton, are also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit
for a King (Steering Committee 2005):
• In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and
revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
» Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river.
Rehabilitation includes:
2-4 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
- Installation of LWD
Control of invasive weeds and replanting of native vegetation
Introduction of spawning gravel in the Green River Mainstem
« Protect and restore side channels, off-channel wetlands, tributary mouths, and pools
that provide shelter and habitat complexity for young salmon.
• Protect and restore natural sediment movement by reconnecting sediment sources to
the river.
• Modify the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage.
Although the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term
Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in
ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures
those processes and functions that benefit all fish and wildlife.
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek
Key findings and identified habitat limiting factors in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Report-Part II (Kerwin 2000) include:
• Historically, it is believed that these creeks were important areas of refugia to
anadromous salmonids that reared year round in the Green River basin.
• Water quality is degraded throughout much of this subbasin.
• There is no functioning riparian habitat throughout the lower reaches of Mill and
Springbrook Creeks. The absence of this habitat contributes to the lack of stream
channel diversity, complexity, and ultimately successful salmonid rearing capabilities.
• The Black River Pump Station is a partial fish passage barrier and does not meet
current fish screening criteria. Adult salmonids that migrate upstream of this structure
cannot migrate back into the mainstem Green River because of facility design.
« There are several known barriers to adult salmonid fish passage in Springbrook, Mill,
and Garrison Creeks. Some of these barriers are seasonal and/or dependent on annual
precipitation patterns.
• Degraded water quality throughout the lower reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks
adversely impact adult Chinook and coho reproductive success along with coho,
cutthroat, and steelhead juvenile survival.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 2-5
Ordinance 5633
.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects
Restoration goals and objectives from the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan support lower Green
River subwatershed areas in proximity to or within City shorelines. These goals aim to:
» Improve the health of the Green River, Springbrook Creek and additional tributary
streams by identifying hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent
feasible with bioengineered stabilization solutions.
• Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and erosion
control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline processes. Where
levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set back due to infrastructure
considerations, maintain and repair them using design approaches that maximize the
use of native vegetation and LWD.
• Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing LWD
recruitment potential through plantings of trees, particularly conifers, in the riparian
corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs.
• Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
Specific projects identified include:
LG 17 Fort Dent Levee (RM 11.4-11.7): Without affecting existing soccer fields, setback
the Fort Dent Levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench.
Plant native riparian vegetation and add LWD along toe of slope and on the created
bench. Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water
habitat during juvenile migration.
LG 18 Black River Marsh (RM 11): Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable
native vegetation at the Black River confluence with the Green/Duwamish. Project
would remove 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement of LWD along banklines.
LG 19 Lower Springbrook Reach (RM 1): Rehabilitate riparian areas for rearing and off-
channel refuge on Springbrook Creek. Approximately 4,500 feet of Springbrook
would be improved with riparian plantings, LWD, pool construction, channel branch
excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a two-stage (low- and
high-flow) channel.
In addition, a number of potential restoration efforts for the Black River/Springbrook Creek
watershed were identified.
City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS
3.1 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan
The City is one of 27 members of the WRIA 8 forum, which funded and developed the Final
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic
and site-specific actions to address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Lake
Washington/Cedar River Watershed (WRIA 8 2005). Site-specific restoration sites and
objectives of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan are identified within the
Potential Sites Section 2.2.2 of the Restoration Plan.
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007, the King County Council established the King County Food Control Zone District
(KCFCZD) which included transfer of the assets of the previously-existing 10 individual
flood control zone districts to the new countywide district and established a countywide tax
assessment.
Current plans call for spending between $179 million and $335 million to implement the
recommendations included in the recently adopted Flood Hazard Management Plan (King
County 2007). These plans and projects include the installation of setback levees and
inclusion of habitat features as part of the overall flood control project. The plan was adopted
by the King County Council January 16, 2007.
Within the Flood Hazard Management Plan lies the Action Plan to address flood risk
reduction needs as well as allocating grant funds. Basin-specific areas within King County
are categorized based on requiring "status quo" for work that can be achieved with the current
funding or "enhanced funding" for high priority needs that will require additional funding
sources. A full list of Cedar River proposed actions and cost estimates can be seen below at
Table 3-1 (KCFHMP 2007).
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 3-1
Ordinance 5633
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Project Estimated
Start Date 10-Year Cost
Cedar River Residential
Flood Hazard Mitigation
Analysis
Determine best alternative(s) for reducing
risks to homes in areas subject to flood
hazards including both repetitive loss and
proposed project areas. Emphasis will be on
residential neighborhoods with extensive flood
hazard areas. Supports recommendations
ERA-1 through 4.
2008 $175,000
Cedar River Channel
Migration Zone Study
and Mapping.
Prepare channel migration zone study and
maps for the Cedar River.
2009 $30,000
Cedar Rapids Levee
Setback
Setback levee to improve flood conveyance
and restore habitat. Complete project design,
permits, and construction. Funding will cover
project management and non reimbursable
grant expenses associated with this grant
funded project. Total project cost is estimated
at $1,500,000.
2009 $137,000
Jan Road-Rutlege
Johnson Levee
Setbacks
Remove portions of both levees that protect
only open space. Segments of existing levees
constrict conveyance and direct erosive flood
flows into the Cedar River Trail and State
Route 169.
2009 $955,000
Dorre Don Meanders -
Phase 1 Flood Hazard
Analysis
Purchase flood-prone properties in lower
Dorre Don area and, where possible, modify
levees to improve flood conveyance and
protect residential area.
2009 $175,000
Maplewood Acquisition
and Levee Setback
Phase 1
Evaluate hazard reduction options in
neighborhood at risk of flooding due to
landslide and rapid channel change
2009 $116,446
Renton - Cedar River
Bridge Flood Reduction
Project
Reconstruct one of five bridges to an elevation
above the new floodplain (protects major
public infrastructure).
2014 $667,395
Cedar Grove Mobile
Home Park Acquisition
Project
Purchase mobile home park and provide
relocation assistance to the residents in this
area of major flood hazards.
2008 $4,349,000
Rainbow Bend Levee
Setback and Floodplain
Reconnection
Setback or remove levee to improve flood
conveyance and storage through this reach
and to restore floodplain functions.
2009 $1,733,000
Cedar River Early Action
Residential Flood
Hazard Mitigation
Purchase or otherwise mitigate flood risks to
nine repetitive loss properties not addressed
by other projects in this basin. Supports
recommendations ERA-1 and 4.
2009 $2,811,000
Herzman Levee Setback
& Floodplain
Reconnection
Setback levee to reduce erosive forces on the
Cedar River Trail and State Route 169.
2008 $1,023,000
Cedar River Gravel
Removal Project
Riparian enhancement, both sides of reach,
Facilitate instream pool structure, habitat
diversity and floodplain connections in reach.
2010 $6,039,877
Lower Lions Club Purchase and remove flood-prone homes. 2011 $1,485,671
City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 | 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
I
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan (continued)
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Project
Start Date
Estimated
10-Year Cost
Lower Jones Road
Setback Project
Purchase the homes and property, set back
road, and associated revetment.
2012 $4,408,000
Maplewood Acquisition
and Levee Setback
Phase 2
Reduce flooding risks in neighborhood at risk
of flooding due to landslide and rapid channel
change.
2013 $10,528,784
Getchman Levee
Setback and Floodplain
Reconnection
Setback the levee to improve river's flood
conveyance, flood storage, and its interaction
with lower Taylor Creek, while maintaining
protection for Maxwell Road. Most of the
acquisitions for this project are already
completed or are underway.
$2,670,000
Rhode Levee Setback
and Home Buyouts
Purchase homes along path of fastest,
deepest flood flow, and set back the levee to
lower localized velocities and depths.
$3,518,000
3.1.3 King County Conservation District
Between the years of 1999 and 2005, total grant money offered by the King Conservation
District (KCD) totaled about $5 million for 64 projects and actions KCD funding doubled in
2006 due to an increase in the KCD assessment from $5 per parcel to $10 per parcel. In 2006
and 2007, KCD grants for habitat restoration within WRIA 8 totaled approximately $1.4
million annually and funded 15 actions each year (King County 2009). Between 1994 and
2007, the City has received $45,978 in KCD Member Jurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant
Program Grants within the City-wide reaches of Cedar River, Lake Washington, and May
Creek for the May Creek Basin Action Plan which was completed in 2001.
High priority projects and programs for WRIA 8 KCD funding are found in the Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan and Potential Sites Section 6.2 for Cedar River and Lake
Washington Shorelines within the City.
WRIA 8 projects in-progress or completed projects funded in part by KCD Grants include:
• The Cedar Rapids - Ricardi Reach Floodplain Acquisition (C224) includes 15 acres
for restoration project (C222) work and levee removal. The area is between RM 7.2-
7.4 of the Cedar River mainstem and was completed 12/31/2007.
• Rainbow Bend Acquisition allows funds from the 2007 KCD Grant Cycle to purchase
20 acres of floodplain at a cost of $ 1.1 million along the Lower Cedar River. The area
includes most natural existing riverine and riparian habitat downstream from Maple
Valley.
• The Cedar River Habitat Restoration Stewardship (2007) provides funds for planting
projects and stewardship of restoration sites such as the Lions Club side-channel
project.
• Lower Cedar Acquisition allows funds to purchase up to 20 acres of floodplain along
the Lower Cedar River (RM 9 - 15.1) in 2008.
For a map and list of further habitat work projects made possible in part by King
Conservation District grants in WRIA 8, go to: http://hws.ekosvstem.us/
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 3-3
Ordinance 5633
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.1.4.1 Renton Community Services Department
The Volunteer Program within the City's Community Services Department operates within
many City departments and several restoration-specific regional groups. Within the City,
park and recreation volunteer opportunities are available for a variety of groups based on size,
commitment, and interest. Habitat restoration volunteer park projects in the past 1-2 years
include:
• Cedar River Trail invasive plant removal, replanting with trees and shrubs, and litter
clean-up (2008-09);
» Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park shoreline litter clean up and invasive plant
removal (2008);
• Fish Ladder/Cedar River tree planting (2008); and
• Black River Riparian Forest invasive plant removal and path restoration (2008-09).
Upcoming park restoration projects in need of volunteers can be found on the spotlight
opportunities webpage: http://rentonwa.gov/working/default.aspx?id=568.
3.1.4.2 Salmon Watchers Program
The Salmon Watchers Program provides opportunities for citizens to be involved in the care
of salmon-bearing streams. During the salmon run season between September and January,
volunteers record the number of salmon they witness at a selected location and the date and
time of their site visits. The program serves to increase public awareness of the plight of the
salmon, and indicates where habitat enhancement may be valuable. Volunteers will be
trained at several locations on distinguishing the various species of salmon and trout; training
is provided by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility and the King County Water and Land
Resources Division.
Within Renton, volunteers can select from sites along the Cedar River and May Creek that
are optimal for salmon watching. The specific locations will be safe and easily accessible.
For more on the Salmon Watchers Program and volunteer opportunities, please visit the
Salmon Watcher Web Site of King County Water and Land Resources:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/salmon-and-trout/salmon-
watchers.aspx
3.1.4.3 Cedar River Naturalist Program
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed (FCRW) is the non-profit whose mission is to inspire
conservation and protection of a healthy Cedar River Watershed through restoration,
education, and stewardship. FCRW leads the Cedar River Naturalist Program and has been
active in recruiting volunteers, hosting restoration work parties within the watershed, and
raising funds to help build the Cedar River Watershed Education Center. Along with
restoration events, FCRW programs include:
• The Cedar River Watershed Report works in collaboration with local schools,
governments, the media, and non-profit groups to engage high school leaders in a
progress evaluation towards sustainability in the Cedar River Watershed.
• The Cedar River Salmon Journey stations volunteer naturalists at sites along the
Cedar River to educate visitors about the journey made by salmon from the ocean,
through the Ballard Locks, into Lake Washington, and on up the River to spawn.
More information and volunteer opportunities can be found at: www.cedarriver.org
3-4 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
3.2 GREEN RIVER /SPRINGBROOK CREEK
3.2.1 WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan
The importance of the Green/Duwamish Watershed as an ecosystem within the Puget Sound
has resulted in considerable focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the
federal listing of Chinook and bull trout as endangered species, watershed planning in the
region (e.g., WRIA 9) has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 2005). The
plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic and site specific actions to address
restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Green River watershed.
The City was one of 16 members of the WRIA 9 Forum, which participated in financing and
developing the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. The City's
Shoreline Master Program update relies on the science included in the WRIA 9 Salmon
Habitat Plan and related documents, and incorporates recommended projects and actions
from the WRIA 9 documents.
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007 the King County Council established the KCFCZD which included transfer of the
assets of the previously-existing ten individual flood control zone districts to the new
countywide district and established a countywide tax assessment.
Within the lower Green River Basin, KCFCZD sponsors levee improvement projects with
local partnerships (KCFHMP 2007). A start list of Green River proposed actions and cost
estimates from 2007-2016 generated by the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management
Plan includes five projects listed in Table 3-2:
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for Green River, City of Renton Vicinity (2007-2016)
Table 3-2. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Action Description Estimated
10-Year
Cost
Pump Station Operation Maintain and Operate three pump stations including the
Black River pump station
$2,100,000
Green River Flood Study Complete flood study and corresponding Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for the Green River between RM 5 - 45.
$1,000,000
Nursing Home Levee Rehabilitate levees to reduce the risk of flooding in the
Project Lower Green River.
$2,438,000
Salmon Habitat
Recovery Cost Share
Provide financial support to and participate in Salmon $1,000,000
Recovery Funding Board and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Ecosystem Recovery Project habitat projects.
Green River Flood
Control Zone District
Program Management
Provide program management and administration to Green $1,000,000
River Flood Control Zone District projects, programs, and
other related activities.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan
Ordinance 5633
3.2.3 King Conservation District
The KCD is a non-regulatory natural resources assistance agency founded in 1949. The
District promotes conservation through demonstration projects, educational events, providing
technical assistance, and, in some cases, providing or pointing the way to funds that may be
available for projects.
The WRIA 9 Forum allocates approximately $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential
technical assessments (KCD 2009). Since 2005, high priority sites for WRIA 9 KCD funding
were identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan and Strategic Assessment report.
Between the years of 1994-2007, the City of Renton has been awarded a total of $86,076 in
KCD Member Jurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant Program Grants for six projects within
the City-wide reaches of Green River and Black River/Springbrook Creek. These projects
include the Wetland Mitigation, Springbrook Creek, Future Stream Enhancement Project for
1994 ($5,456) and 1995 ($5,565); the Springbrook Creek Channel Improvement and Wetland
Mitigation Project ($11,549.19); the Black River Riparian Forest Buffer Enhancement Plan
($3,552); the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project ($55,085); and the Black River
Channel Native Plant Restoration Project PI & PII ($4,869).
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
A couple of the projects listed in the WRIA 9 Recommended Programs were originally
identified by the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP), a cooperative effort
between 17 local governments, Indian Tribes, the State of Washington, NOAA Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and various
other organizations and private citizens.
The ERP generated a list of 45 projects, 29 of which were ultimately incorporated into the
Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King which received nearly $2
million in funding. As of 2005, ERP implementation funds of nearly $2 million were
provided by the federal government under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Of the 29 projects incorporated in the Salmon Habitat Plan, three are found in the Lower
Green River and Springbrook Creek areas specific to the City of Renton. These projects
listed numerically (LG-#) in the Plan include Fort Dent levee setback (LG-17), Black River
Marsh riparian rehabilitation (LG-18), and Lower Springbrook Reach (LG-18); see full
description at Potential Restoration Sites Section 6.1.2.
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.2.5.1 Renton Community Services Department
See Section 3.1.4.1 for information about the Volunteer Program within the City's
Community Service Department.
3.2.6 Black River Watershed Alliance
The Black River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) is an organization which coordinates a variety
of restoration projects within the Black River and Springbrook Creek Watersheds. Past
projects include: native plant restoration on the downstream and upstream sides of the Black
River Pump Station as part of the Black River Channel Native Plant Restoration Project,
Black River Riparian Forest wildlife monitoring, free class and group presentations, free
school and group field trips through the forest, booths at open houses and events, and
participation in the King County Clean Stream Car Wash Program (Renton 2007).
Restoration work done by Black River Watershed Alliance has received support through
3-6 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
grants from King County matched by the City with KCD funds. With the help of volunteers,
BRWA aims to:
» Protect and enhance the Black River Watershed for wildlife habitat, water and air
quality, and for its historic value to indigenous people.
• Develop community awareness of the Black River Watershed through
educational field trips and presentations, and restoration projects.
• Foster community stewardship of the Black River.
• Work cooperatively with other groups interested in protecting the Black River.
• Provide an opportunity for the community to connect with nature.
More information at: http://www.blackriverwatershedalliance.com/
3.2.7 Herons Forever
Herons Forever is a non-profit organization. The Black River heron colony is one of the
largest in Washington State with over 50 active nests. Herons Forever is a non-profit
organization which strives to build local support to preserve, protect, and enhance the Black
River Riparian Forest for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enjoyment of citizens. Herons Forever
sets up volunteer work parties to help restore Blue Heron habitat through invasive plants and
litter removal and has helped secure public funds to purchase nearly 60 acres of private land
buffering heron nest sites by 1996.
More information at: http://www.heronsforever.org/
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning
Stormwater discharge from throughout the city eventually enters surface water and enters the
Lake Washington/Cedar River or Green River watersheds.
On March 31, 2008, Ecology approved the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II permit. The NPDES Phase II permit is required to cover the City's
stormwater discharges into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit,
the City must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach;
detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (spills, illegal dumping,
wastewater); management and regulation of construction site runoff; management and
regulation of runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction; and pollution
prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Currently, Renton has approved use of the 2009 King County Stormwater Permit Design
Manual along with city amendments to implement NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit deadlines given by the Department of Ecology in 2007. Based on the implementation
of the City's Storm Water Management Plan, new developments which create more than
5,000 square feet of new impervious surface trigger drainage review including off-site
analyses, erosion and runoff control, and conveyance system design. This will help mitigate
any further water quality degradation done to salmon bearing waters such as May Creek and
Cedar River as well as nearshore riparian habitat of Springbrook Creek and Lake
Washington.
Implementing NPDES Phase II flow control and surface water design standards will aid in
the City's ability mitigate pollution from municipal stormwater systems into the City's
streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands.
March 2010 [ 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan
Ordinance 5633
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations
The City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations are found in Renton Municipal Code Section
4-3-050 of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. The City adopted a
revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in 2004, consistent with other requirements of the
Growth Management Act update. The updated regulations are based on "best available
science," and provide a high level of protection to critical areas in the City, particularly for
streams and wetlands.
The regulations affect lands outside of Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction and address:
• Geologically hazardous areas
• Frequently flooded areas
• Critical aquifer recharge areas
• Wetlands
• Habitat conservation areas, including streams and lakes and areas associated with
priority species
Provisions in the regulations generally:
• Provide for the general prohibition of alteration in those critical areas with ecological
importance such as wetlands, streams, lakes, marine shorelines, and wildlife habitat
areas.
• Restrict the range of allowed uses.
• Provide for buffers to either protect human health and safety (in the case of
Geological Hazards) or protect ecological functions.
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan
The City of Renton's objective under this policy framework is to provide a high quality
comprehensive park, recreation, open space, and trails system to meet short- and long-term
needs of current and future Renton residents. The following policies concerning natural
resources protection and restoration include:
Policy P-17. Encourage private donations of properties where public access is anticipated or
planned and where consistent with the Long Range Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan.
Policy P-41. Steward the City's open space network to protect the City's natural character
and sustain its urban forest resources.
Policy P-57. Develop inventories and management plans for open space and natural areas.
Policy P-58. Provide funds for native vegetation and other habitat enhancements to
encourage appropriate wildlife on existing open space lands where consistent with the
recreational use of the area.
3-8 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Policy P-59. Acquire open space that has the following features:
a. Can fill a gap or connect the existing open space network
b. Is environmentally sensitive or unique
c. Provides wildlife habitat
d. Can protect natural resource areas
e. Is archeologically significant
f. Provides relief from urban development
Policy P-60. Increase public awareness of, and appreciation for, specific natural features
through education and interpretive programs.
Policy P-67. Linkages should be provided with surrounding communities within major
regional corridors such as the Cedar River, Green River, the Lake Washington Loop, and the
Soos Creek Trail.
Policy P-109. Partner with non-profit agencies, King County, the State of Washington, the
Federal government and other public and private service providers to meet the cultural,
recreational, social, and environmental programs and space needs of the City.
Policy P-l 16. Coordinate with other governmental agencies and private organizations to
provide a connected open space system for the City and surrounding region.
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan
3.3.4.1 Surface Water Utility
A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-
site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance
(Renton Municipal Code Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns,
maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within
public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management
purposes.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard in Renton
The Surface Water Utility LOS is intended to accomplish the following:
« Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall
duration and intensity to protect public safety, property, and convenience of areas
within City;
• Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and
groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies;
• Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water
runoff to pre-developed level; and
• Provide protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
Capital Facilities and Funding Plan. 2007-2012
Surface Water Utility developments include: Cedar River Basin, Springbrook Creek Wetland
and Habitat Mitigation Bank, Storm System Improvement and Replacement, Springbrook
Creek Improvements, and Green River Ecosystem Restoration. Budgeting costs for these
items between the years of 2007-2012 will be $8,835,000 (CFP 2008).
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan
Ordinance 5633
3.3.4.2 Parks
Parks and open space areas within the City provide ways for the public to interact with the
natural environment. Adjacent and within sensitive shorelines, open space natural areas serve
to protect existing habitat from effects of the built environment. Park and open space areas
must continue to grow to match City growth as well as mitigate development impacts to
wildlife habitat within sensitive shoreline areas.
The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The
LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas is only 5.35 acres/1,000, which reduces the
2007 overall Planning Area LOS to 12.26 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and
open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing
boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved Potential Annexation Areas (CFP 2008).
Acquisitions
Two Park types within Renton's Capital Facilities Plan cater toward open space protection
and restoration:
1. Open Space Areas, defined as general open space, trail systems, and other
undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep
hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive
area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily
wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas.
• Open Space Areas applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
May Creek Greenway (29.82 acres), Honey Creek Greenway (35.73 acres), May
Creek/McAskill (10 acres), and Cedar River Natural Area (237 acres).
• Open Space Areas applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes: the
Black River Riparian Forest (92 acres), Panther Creek Wetlands (73 acres),
Renton Wetlands (125 acres), and Cleveland Property (23.66 acres), Springbrook
Watershed (38 acres).
The majority of this park type is wetlands, steep slopes or land otherwise not suitable
for recreational development.
2. Linear Parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that
generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a
street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of
open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this
type of area.
» The Linear Parks applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
the Cedar River Trail (4.5 miles), Honey Creek Trail (1 mile), and Lake
Washington Blvd (1.5 miles).
• The Linear Parks applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes the
Springbrook trail spanning a length of two miles.
Opportunities exist for additional linear parks along utility corridors.
Management of Existing Parks
The city policies for management of parks provide for meeting multiple goals including both
recreational use and ecological stewardship.
Opportunities for incremental changes in park management to sustain more productive
shoreline resources include measures such as shifting activity areas such as picnic areas
3-10 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
further from the water's edge, relocating lawn areas further from the waters edge and planting
and maintaining native vegetation buffers along the water. The management of waterfront
park lands represents a challenge in balancing competing goals of the Shoreline Management
Act of increasing public recreational use of the shoreline and protecting and enhancing
ecological processes.
3.3.5 Private Development
Many shoreline properties have the potential for improvement of ecological functions
through:
• Management of shoreline vegetation to emphasize native species to reduce
potential water quality impacts from chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides), contribute to temperature attenuation and provide food-cycle
functions;
• Reduction or modification of shoreline armoring;
• Reduction of overwater cover and in-water structures or reducing shading; and
• Reductions in impervious surface coverage and/or water quality treatment of
runoff prior to discharge into surface waters.
The SMP includes requirements for removing bulkheads and similar hard shoreline structure
when properties are redeveloped, including partial compliance at lower levels of
redevelopment. The City could also explore administrative incentives for restoration, such as
waiving some or all permit fees or providing more rapid review.
Multiple contiguous properties may be restored through grant resources that would address
restoration more effectively than through lot-by-lot redevelopment.
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach
Voluntary actions by shoreline property owners are an essential element of the restoration
strategy and have the potential to affect a greater extent of the property than the limited
number of properties expected to redevelop in the future. The Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
includes a range of "Outreach and Education Actions" with a range of target audiences from
the general public, to shoreline property owners in general, to lakeshore property owners
specifically, to businesses, to youth, and others.
The City also can work with other local jurisdictions to establish a Shore Stewards program
for Lake Washington, the Cedar River, and Springbrook Creek within the existing King
County. Shore Steward programs provide a forum for waterfront and stream-side property
owners to share ideas, information and resources and sets up guidelines for shoreline
residents to preserve and enhance the shoreline environment.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update- Final Restoration Plan 3-11
Ordinance 5633
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS
The Renton SMP Restoration Plan is intended to be coordinated with other existing plans in
the area, but provide additional potential project focused on opportunities identified in the
SMP Inventory/Characterization.
The SMP Restoration Plan Goals are:
• Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 8 to implement the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
(WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
• Use the scientific foundation and the identification of opportunities and
constraints in the SMP Inventory/Characterization together with other watershed,
fish, and flood control plans as a resource to identify restoration strategies and
projects.
• Use the comprehensive list of projects and other actions consistent with the
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, and the King County Flood Management
Plan as sources of potential site-specific projects.
• Coordinate land use decisions, particularly mitigation required of development
projects, with the comprehensive list of project actions for coordinated
implementation of the most effective restoration strategy.
• Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property
owners, in addition to agency funded and project related actions as well as
resource friendly daily actions such as vegetation selection and management,
pesticide/herbicide use, car washing and other activities.
« Provide for management of City-owned parks and other facilities to provide for
ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control and other goals.
• Seek funding for restoration actions and programs from a variety of sources and
by working with other WRIA 8 stakeholders to seek federal, state, grant and
other funding opportunities.
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities
Restoration of Renton's shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with site-specific
limitations. The WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Strategy and the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan lists an array of actions on potential restoration sites listed above that
watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next decade. Chinook Conservation
Strategy priorities for Lower Cedar River and South Lake Washington intend to:
» Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing high-
quality habitat.
• Protect, reconnect, and/or restore off-channel habitat and shallow, mainstem
habitat.
• Protect and, where feasible, restore floodplain connectivity throughout the Cedar
River subarea.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan
Ordinance 5633
• Remove bank hardening and remove or setback existing structures in the
floodplain to prevent additional bank hardening.
• Protect and restore in-stream channel complexity and functional riparian
conditions.
• Ensure the adequate and continual supply of suitable spawning substrate
throughout the system.
• Reduce forest road runoff and fine sediments entering the mainstem and its
tributaries.
» Protect and maintain flows in the mainstem and tributaries to provide suitable
rearing, spawning, and migratory habitats for all salmon species.
• Enhance existing habitats: This action will improve the functioning of the
existing aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats which presently exist
along the Cedar River and at tributary mouths entering Lake Washington. These
actions could include the removal of non-native invasive vegetation, installation
of native riparian vegetation, and installation of LWD below ordinary high water
mark.
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
Tables 4-1 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map 1.
4-2 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Washington
Lake Washington Reach A From BeUevue city limits to
Renton city limits
Lake Washington Reach B
Lake Washington Reach C
From the city limits to the
Seahawks training facility
From the Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training
facility through the former
Barbee Mill site.
Lake Washington Reach D From May Creek to Mountain
View Avenue
This developed single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing adverse impacts shall be through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water and may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on
the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation.
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and
to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting
change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A.
Some opportunities may be present at the Puget Sound Energy submerged cable crossing in this reach if it is
replaced in the future.
This area provides some riparian vegetation at the Seahawks facility from previous redevelopment activity.
There is a large vacant parcel with complex wetlands and some riparian vegetation in the center portion of the
site that would require buffer preservation and enhancement upon redevelopment. The site is currently a
superfund site and it will be important to integrate the policies and standards of the SMP as part of any cleanup
program.
Adjacent to the Barbee Mill subdivision there is a narrow replanted vegetation area on public aquatic land that
has been withdrawn from leasing in recognition of the ecological restoration activities that have taken place.
A portion of the frontage to the south is bulkheaded single family lots with pending dock applications.
In the long term over 20 to 50 years, May Creek delta formation will lead to additional riparian area and shallow
wetlands where riparian vegetation will provide multiple benefits to aquatic and terrestrial species.
The May Creek Basin Management Plan addresses the delta in the following:"
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance
May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility
study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could
reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic
benefits."
The (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan includes Project C277 Restoration of mouth of May Creek.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued. This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
improvements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks as property redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
/[arch 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 4-3
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
encouraged through education programs.
Some opportunities may be present on short sections of shoreline presently part of the railroad right of way that
may be acquired by King County.
The City of Renton Parks Department has opportunities to naturalize the Kennydale Park water frontage through
softer shoreline protection in conjunction with beach restoration and provision of shoreline native riparian
vegetation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
improvements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks as property redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
encouraged through education programs.
Lake Washington Reach F The less developed northerly This public park provides numerous opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation s implemented
portion of Gene Coulon Park as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Kennydale Creek is enhancement Project C265 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This is the more active portion of the park with more hard surface, a boat launch ramp, over-water walkways, a
swimming beach and water-oriented restaurant and recreational uses.
Despite the amount of alteration, there are productive shoreline areas that provide opportunities for
enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing park management. This
must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Johns Creek is enhancement Project C264 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This site has received preliminary approvals for mixed use development. Buffers for vegetation management
are not addressed in existing approvals and opportunities for public access along the waterfront and supporting
water oriented uses are the designated priority.
Enhancement of the near-shore area, including modification of the shore protection installed in the 1950s
through 1970s should be a priority of both private development and public projects.
The delta of Johns Creek also contributes sediment to this area which may contribute to restoration of some
nearshore functions through natural processes.
Options to work with private property owners to remove bulkheads and restore shallow water habitat is project
C267 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan.
Lake Washington Reach I Boeing Plant and to the Cedar This reach of about 2,500 linear feet is about evenly divided between a vegetated area which is managed by the
River Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as public aquatic lands and the Boeing Renton Plant.
Shoreline restoration of the DNR site to remove a portion of the existing flume create shallow water habitat,
protect existing cove, and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along shore is project C266 in the WRIA 8
Lake Washington Reach E from Mountain View Avenue
to Gene Coulon Park
Lake Washington Reach G The more developed
southerly portion of Gene
Coulon Park
Lake Washington Reach H Southport mixed-use
development
4-4 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 | 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Washington Reach J
Lake Washington Reach K
Renton Municipal Airport
From the Renton Municipal
Airport to the Seattle city
limits
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan. Implementation of this program should ensure preservation
of deep water areas in the adjacent Southport Development to meet the City's SMP goals for accommodating
water dependent uses.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued. This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation and is
generally consistent with the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which
calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
This reach of about 650 feet is currently entirely armored with vertical bulkheads. The airport is currently
pursuing reconfiguration and dredging for the seaplane dock. As part of this program they are proposing to use
dredged materials to create one or more "habitat islands" that will provide both riparian and shallow aquatic
habitat and also be located to direct siltation within the Cedar River Delta to reduce the needed frequency of
maintenance dredging.
Enhanced riparian vegetation may be provided on the habitat island(s) and adjacent to bullheaded areas with
the maintenance of trees so they do not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a substantial bird
roosting area that could interfere with aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished
by periodic thinning to remove more mature growth.
This reach of about a mile is almost entirely a developed single family neighborhood with about 600 feet of multi-
family development and a trailer park. This area is designated by Renton as a future area of Commercial,
Office, Residential (COR) use which provides for high intensity use. Redevelopment of this area will provide
opportunities for restoration through native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water as well as possible
reconfiguration or elimination of over-water structures.
In the single-family area there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects although several
undeveloped areas have the potential for acquisition for a combination of public access, preservation and
enhancement.
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C269 calls for working with homeowners to
remove bulkheads, convert of nearshore habitat to shallow beach, restore riparian vegetation and reduce the
number of docks by using community docks.
May Greek
May Creek A From the mouth of the creek
to Lake Washington Blvd.
Restoration of the delta at the mouth of May Creek is addressed in Lake Washington Reach C.
Vegetation in the May Creek corridor was set aside as an open space area and enhanced as part of the recent
Barbee Mill subdivision. Monitoring and enforcement of vegetation establishment standards will be needed to
ensure successful maturation of the vegetation .
/larch 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 4-5
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
May Creek B From Lake Washington Blvd This is a relatively intact reach with mature native riparian vegetation. Preservation of a buffer can be expected
to I-405 with future residential development.
Planting of conifers within the buffer area in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 to
supplement the existing deciduous trees will establish a mix of vegetation and over the longer term establish of
forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure,
Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for an existing deficit and promote natural channel
processes.
May Creek C From I-405 to NE 36th Street This section of May Creek is largely owned by Renton and King County and maintained as open space. There
are several private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some
places.
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
This section of May Creek is largely part of the King County and maintained as open space. There are several
private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some places, installed
bank protection and is some cases bridged the stream for access.
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space. Properties that are acquired should be programmed for removal of bank
stabilization, removal of bridges and replanting.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Mouth to Logan Avenue This reach of the Cedar River is bounded by the City of Renton Cedar River Trails park on the east and the
Municipal Airport on the west.
Within the park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of
ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to
the shoreline.
Enhanced riparian vegetation may be provided adjacent to the airport with the maintenance of trees so they do
not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a substantial bird roosting area that could interfere with
aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished by periodic thinning to remove more
May Creek D From NE 36th Street to the
city limits
4-6 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Cedar River B Logan Avenue to I-405 bridge
Cedar River C l-405totheSR169
mature growth.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park management, balanced with
needs of flood control levees and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Replacement of the North Boeing Bridge should be explored. This bridge is an obstruction to flood water.
Replacement of the bridge with one that is not an obstruction may reduce the amount of dredging needed for
flood control.
Flood control dredging of the river should be coordinated with mitigation projects, including possible
enhancement of the delta through habitat islands.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of flood control management programs
that may be integrated with and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Vegetation management and public access should be addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to
additional flood management activities.
The existing public walkway near the water should be considered for relocation to the top of the bank and the
streambank revegetated with native species.
Within the city owned land, including the senior center, the park maintenance facility, Jones Park and Liberty
Park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing
park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the
shoreline.
Exploring options to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river is Project C 203 in the WRIA 8 Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
Project C 210 notes that Renton's three riverside parks (Liberty, Cedar River Park, NARCO property) are going
through re-master planning and suggests pursing opportunities to move some of more active recreation uses to
protect habitat with more passive recreational uses along the water.
Within the city owned land, including the Cedar River Park on the north site (right bank) and public open space
on the south side (left bank) opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented
as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation and removal or replacement of bank armoring can be expected to be
implemented upon redevelopment of private property on the north shore.
In the Maplewood neighborhood downstream of SR 169 the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
Recovery Plan Project C208 calls for possible flood buyouts in this neighborhood and pursuit of opportunities to
restore the floodplain as well as options for bioengineering and softening bank hardening. The King County
Flood Management Plan calls for voluntary buy-out of this area because more than half the neighborhood would
be inundated by shallow flooding in a 100-year event and an active landslide scarp poses risk of a major
landslide that could block all or a portion of the channel, and could potentially redirect the flow of the river into
the residential area.
In the single-family areas there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
/larch 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 4-7
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
Cedar River D SR 169 to UGA boundary This reach of a little more than a mile is largely in public ownership. The few residential parcels are designated
for voluntary buy-outs in the King County Flood Management Plan. There are several mitigation projects in this
area including rearing channels constructed by King County, Renton and the Corps of Engineers, although some
have been damaged by recent floods. This reach should be the subject of a comprehensive restoration plan.
The WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan calls for Project C212 to provides for conifer
interplanting in forested riparian areas within reach, while noting concern raised that under natural conditions
forested riparian areas in the lower Cedar River may have been primarily deciduous; Project C213 calls for
existing riparian habitat, instream habitat conditions and extensive LWD in reach; Project C214 4 1 proposes a
study of options to protect habitat in this reach and reduce flooding and erosion in Ron Regis Park: including
exploration of LWD installation and levee setbacks to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to Ron Regis
Park while allowing natural habitat forming processes
4-8 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update — Final Restoration Plan March 2010 | 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
4.3 GREEN/SPRINGBROOK
4.3.1 Priorities
Proposed Actions by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan include projects to protect, restore, rehabilitate, or substitute habitat or the
processes that create habitat.
The Plan recommends an array of projects such as the potential restoration sites listed above
that watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next 10 years. Lower Green River and
Springbrook Creek, in accordance with the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan proposed actions
intend to:
« Protect existing processes and habitats that are working well;
• Restore processes and habitats that can be returned to good conditions;
» Rehabilitate damaged processes and habitats that can be sustained with on-going
efforts; and
« Substitute processes and habitats that are lost.
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
Tables 4-2 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map 1.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 4-9
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Black River Reach A The Black River/Springbrook to Grady Way There are opportunities to provide native vegetation buffers at such time as private
property downstream of Monster Road redevelops.
Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged in areas of railroad
right of way not devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of railroad facilities may
require specific vegetation preservation and enhancement programs.
The retrofitting or reconstruction of the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage
is a long term goal identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Report but is likely to be very expensive.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project LG 18 calls for rehabilitation of riparian areas in
the Black River Marsh by and removing fill from the left bank of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement of LWD along banks.
Black/Springbrook B From Grady Way to SW 16 Street
Springbrook D From SW 16th Street to City Limits.
This section of the stream is bridged by Grady Way and I-405.
Improvements to the stream channel and riparian vegetation should be implemented in
conjunction with road improvement and maintenance programs.
Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district channels in
conjunction with management plans including adjustments to channel dimensions to
assure continued flood capacity with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by
vegetation. Vegetation management should retain a continuous trail system that may be
relocated further from the stream edge.
When adjacent land redeveloped vegetated buffers should be provided that will integrate
with re-vegetation of the stream channel.
Additional plans should be pursued for wetland rehabilitation including relocating existing
flood control levees to be outside of adjacent wetlands to allow more natural floodplain
characteristics.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project calls for rehabilitation of areas for rearing and
off-channel refuge on Springbrook Creek including riparian plantings, LWD, pool
construction, channel branch excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a
2-stage (low- and high-flow) channel.
Lake Desire For the entire lake, implement phosphorus controls including phosphorus treatment from
new development runoff, lake aeration and encouraging replacement of ornamental
vegetation with native vegetation requiring less fertilizer and therefore producing less
phosphorus in runoff.
Lake Desire A 17408 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to 18228 West
Lake Desire Dr. SE
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing
adverse impacts shall through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the
water may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation.
4-10 City of Renton — Shoreline Master Program Update — Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location Restoration Objectives
Lake Desire B
Lake Desire C
Lake Desire D
18228 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to the Natural Area
at the south end of the Lake
Natural Area at the south end of the Lake
From the Natural Area to 17346 West Lake Desire
Dr. SE
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with
native vegetation and to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a
roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
Shoreline vegetation enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat launching site
balancing values of riparian vegetation with public access.
Same as Reach A.
Existing shoreline vegetation in this publicly owned natural area should be preserved with
some accommodation for interpretive access to the water s as part of park management
plans, subject to the primary objective of protecting ecological functions.
Same as reach A for developed single family lots.
For the Urban Conservancy area at the top of the lake, private lots should be targeted for
acquisition and preservation.
March2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 4-11
Ordinance 5633
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
As noted in the Shoreline Inventory section of this report, the City's shoreline area is
occupied by industrial, commercial, multi- and single-family residences, and
parks/recreation/open space areas. To ensure that restoration goals are being achieved, it is
important for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan and to adapt to changing
conditions. Under WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f)(vi), the development of a jurisdiction's SMP
must, "Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs
will be implemented...in meeting the overall restoration goals." To remain consistent with
restoration framework and guidance for SMP development, project implementation and
monitoring will survey available funding sources, project timelines and benchmarks, and
document progress of restoration projects.
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Achievements of present restoration projects and restoration planning processes are made
evident through existing partnerships with agencies and organizations. Restoration efforts are
implemented because local citizens, non-governmental organizations, tribes, the City, state,
and federal resource agencies form partnerships to collaborate and problem solve, sharing the
responsibility of each project. For projects near or within City-limits, the greatest likelihood
of funding would result from continued participation in the WRIA 8 and 9 forums as well as
partnering with King County and state and federal agencies. A list of potential funding
sources can be found in Table 5-1 below.
March 2010 | 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 5-1
Ordinance 5633
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities
Organization Grant/Funding Information
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Basinwide Restoration New Starts
General Investigation
Bruce Sexauer
P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 764-6959
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Nell Fuller
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
(503)231-2014 Nell_Fuller(< }fws.gov
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10: Pacific Northwest
Grant Administration Unit
Bob Philips Philips.bob@epa.gov
Washington State Department of
Ecology
www.ecy.way.gov/programs/wq/plants/
grants/index.htm
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
http ://wdfw. wa.gov/ volunter/vol-7 .htm
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB) http://www.rco.wa.gov/
King County Flood Control District
http://www.kingcountyfloodcontrol.org
King Conservation District
http://www.kingcd.org/pro_gra.htm
King County Dept of Natural Resources
and Parks
Ken Pritchard
Grant Exchange Coordinator
(206) 296-8265
ken.pritchard@kingcounty.gov
Community Salmon Fund
est. by National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF)and Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)
Cost-share assistance for fish and wildlife projects, flood management,
general restoration of riparian areas. Chief funder of the Green-Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Funds and assists in the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Grants Program and several fish passage programs including a barrier
culvert removal or replacement program.
Funds projects ranging from protecting the natural environment, including
wetlands, restoration, and stewardship work related to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Funding sources including low-interest loans and grants for improving
Washington state water quality as well as prevention and control of non-
native aquatic plants.
Grants for financial assistance for private landowners taking action to
restore habitat and help preserve threatened species. Local stewardship
programs which participate in repairing fish and wildlife habitat.
Grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board range from $10,000 to
$900,000 in years past for organizations in 28 counties. In 2008, two
WRIA 8 projects including Lower Cedar River Acquisition received
$481,507 in grant funding and three WRIA 9 projects received $363,725.
Current plans to spend $335 million to implement 2006 Flood Hazard
Management. Plans for levee setback and removal for Cedar and Green
River, flood buyouts in progress for Cedar floodplain areas.
WRIA 8 Steering Committee allocates roughly $1.3 million in KCD
Grants annually since 2006. 67% or $890,000 of the annual budget in 2007
going to Site-Specific restoration and protection projects along lower and
middle Cedar River reaches.
WRIA 9 Forum receives $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects identified in the watershed
Habitat plan and Strategic Assessment.
King County Water Quality Grant Fund. Grants of up to $60,000 are
available for restoration and protection of watersheds, streams, rivers,
lakes, and tidewater.
Habitat protection and restoration project grants of up to $75,000
consistent with local salmon habitat plans. The program focuses on
smaller community based restoration projects to support salmon recovery
on private property in cooperation with businesses and landowners. Grants
City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities (continued)
Organization Grant/Funding Information
requests in the $10,000-$20,000 range are strongly encouraged.
Ducks Unlimited Matching funds for habitat restoration and enhancement projects, helps
Matching Aid to Restore Habitat develop and preserve waterfowl habitat.
(MARSH)
(916) 852-2000 conserve@ducks.org
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING
As a long-range policy plan, the SMP guidelines include the goal that local master
programs "...include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the
overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area" (WAC 173-26-201(c)).
To establish the SMP benchmark for implementation effectiveness, the legislature provided a
timeframe for jurisdiction amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012
amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment
schedule requiring that "Local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs
at least once every seven years after the applicable dates... [and] if necessary, revise their
master programs (RCW 90.58.080 (4))."
The 7-year period starts once the City of Renton amends its SMP on or before December 1,
2009 (RCW 90.58.080 (4)(II)). While the review period is taking place, an ongoing
assessment of project successes and limitations must still occur as restoration projects are
planned and implemented within the City. A restoration framework developed in part by
Palmer et al (2005) provides several tasks for assessing restoration actions and revising the
planning process to meet restoration goals. The following actions include:
• Adaptively manage restoration projects;
• Summarize restoration progress including grant applications and funds secured;
• Monitor post-restoration conditions;
« Revise the planning process to reflect changes in objectives and policy re-evaluation;
and
o Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities.
To document progress toward restoration goals regionally within WRIAs 8 and 9 and locally
within the City, annual assessments should occur to determine how well restoration criteria
are met and how effectively the goals of this restoration plan are achieved. Although
implementation may be resource- and time-intensive, its overall impact is significant due to
the potential amount of affected shorelines. With grant aid available to projects of various
scales, the improvement of ecological function outweighs the direct cost of shoreline
protection or restoration, making it increasingly feasible to carry out implementation.
March2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 5-3
Ordinance 5633
6. CONCLUSIONS
As part of the Shoreline Master Program update process, the purpose of the Restoration Plan
is to help improve shoreline function over time (WAC 173-26-20l(2)(f)). This restoration
plan gives the City of Renton a framework with which to pursue ecosystem functioning
within both the Green/Duwamish River and Lake Washington/Cedar River Watersheds. In
time, restoration actions outlined in this document will be implemented and results under the
guise of the City's Restoration Plan within the Shoreline Master Program will be under way.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan 6-1
Ordinance 5633
7. REFERENCES
Chrzastowski, M. 1983. Historical changes to Lake Washington and route of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigation, Open-File Report, WRI 81-1182.
Renton, City of. 2004. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 1, 2004.
Renton, City of. 2005. Impervious Surface Geographic Information System Data.
Renton, City of. 2008. City of Renton Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 5387,
adopted June 9, 2008.
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2009. Salmon Recovery Board, WRIA
8 Application, South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration (#3)
Kahler, T. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial
Structures on ESA-listed Salmonids in Lakes. Prepared for the City of BeUevue. Prepared
by the Watershed Company.
Kerwin, J., 2008 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA. P 4.
http://www.govlink.Org/watersheds/8/reports/DOE-Grant-Report2008.pdf (accessed July 14.
2009).
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. S. (Eds). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9
and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources, http://salmon.scc.wa.gov
King County 1993 Cedar River Current and Future Conditions. Report. King County
Department of Public Works,. Surface Water Management Division,
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: Volumes I, II and
III. July 2005. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/planning/chinook-conservation-
plan.aspx (accessed July 14, 2009).
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA
9).August 2005
http://www.govlink.Org/watersheds/9/planimplementation/HabitatPlan.aspx#download
(accessed July 14, 2009).
King, County of 2007, King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, Shoreline Master Program, Appendix E: Technical Appendix Contains:
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: Methodology and Results May 2007
King, County of, Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District
(KCFCZD), 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton-Shoreline Master Program Update- Restoration Plan 7-1
Ordinance 5633
http://www.kingcountv.gov/environment/waterandland/flood
hazard-management-plan.aspx\
King County Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District (KCFCZD)
2007 Cedar Sammamish Basin Technical Committee Meeting Wednesday April 25, 2007
http://vour.kingcountv.gov/dnrp/wlr/flood/flood-control-zone-district/cedar-
sammamish/btc-meeting-summary/070425-cedar-meeting.pdf
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008c. Lake Desire. Management Plan
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/desire.htm. Accessed on May 5, 2008.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2007. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for
Shoreline Protection Alternatives in Lake Washington, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112.December 13, 2007
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2009 Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation, Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of
Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112. April 20, 2009 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf
Puget Sound Biological Review Team (PSBRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget
Sound Steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle
Green River, Washington: 2000 Data Report. Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington.
Renton, City of, and King County. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan.
Renton, Washington. 107 pgs.
http://vour.kingcoimtv.gov/dnrp/library/1998/kcr726/FINAL-May-Creek-Basin-Plan-4-
16-Ol.pdf
Renton, City of 2003, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
prepared by Parametrix Inc., September 2, 2003, Renton, WA
Straka, Ron. 2008 City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, Personal
communication, September 2008
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B Footen, and L.
Park. 2004. Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of
the Lake Washington basin. Unpublished report, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,
Washington. 86 p.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/westwafwo/fisheries/Piiblications/FP224.pd
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2003. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2001 Report. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
City of Renton - Shoreline Master Program Update - Final Restoration Plan March 2010 553-1779-031
Ordinance 5633
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2003 and 2004 Report. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008.1-405 Springbrook Creek
Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Proiects/i405/Springbrook/. Accessed on July 22, 2008.
March 2010 553-1779-031 City of Renton-Shoreline Master Program Update- Restoration Plan 7-3
Ordinance 5633